Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,477 Year: 3,734/9,624 Month: 605/974 Week: 218/276 Day: 58/34 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Looking beyond the horizons of our knowledge: does it make sense?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 6 (235485)
08-22-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Annafan
08-18-2005 6:58 PM


private vs public
quote:
In reference to the subject, the horizon is either universal and absolute, or particular andconditioned (personal horizon).
By the former is to be understood the congruence of the limits of human knowledge with the limits of all human perfections in general. Here then the question is: What can man, as man, know?
The determination of the personal horizon depends on manifold empirical conditions, and special circumstances — as , for example age, sex, position, way of life, and the like. Thus, every particular class of men has its own particular horizon relative to its special powers of knowledge, its ends, and points of view; every person, also has his own horizon depending on the measure of his own individual powers, and his own point of view. Lastly, we can also conceive a horizon of sound sense, and a horizon of science, (208) which latter requires principles in order to determine according to them what we can know, and what we cannot know.
What we cannot know is above our horizon. What we dare not or need not know is outside our horizon. This latter, however, can only hold good relatively in reference to this or that particular private end, to the attainment of which certain cognitions not only contribute nothing but might even be a hindrance.
p32 Introduction to Logic by Immanuel Kant 1800
I have no problem with Kelvin’s private end provided that I am actively moved by the subject subsequently made public else it might go on as a hindrance in my mind unaware unconsciously etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Annafan, posted 08-18-2005 6:58 PM Annafan has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 6 (237235)
08-26-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
08-22-2005 9:29 PM


Re: It's not that simple
Ok, but rather than "thinking outside the box" substitute "thought outside a minimization of a weighted graph". Scientists do not give enough thought to the differences mentally between what nonEuclidean shape the box remands in the difference of optimizations from a given graph weighted subjectively or more or less objectively matched to givens (minimal spanning trees in biogeography, macroeconomic models, causal patterns any way sugessted etc).
It is a hard thought. That is all. Kelvin was doing the best anyone could at his time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 08-22-2005 9:29 PM nwr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024