Well, as could be guessed, I like what Kant (Intro to Logic pages 34-35 Philosophical Library Edition) had to say
quote:
{211} Opposed to the logical perfection of knowledge with respect to its extent is ignorance, a negative imperfection, or imperfection of want, which on account of th elimits of our understanding continues inseperable from our knowledge.
2-Subjectively viewed, ignorance is either a learned scientificignorance, or common. The man who distinctly sees the limits of knowledge, and therefore the field of ignorance from which it starts; the philosopher, for instance, who percieves and proves how little from want of the requisite data we can know of the structure of gold, is ignorant by rule of art, or ignorant in a learned manner. On the other hand, the man who is ignorant without perceiving the reasons of the limits of ignorance, or troubling himself about them, is ignorant in a common unscientific manner. Such a man does not even know that he knows nothing, For one can never be aware of his own ignorance except by means of science; just as a blind man can form no conception of darkness unil he has acquired sight.
Thus scientific sense is different than common sense. The dark feelings of common sense however may impinge quite directly on the most ignorant areas of scientific knowledge precisely because of the existence of the lack of all sense and some understanding at the limits and may harbour prelogical logical thought. That is where the strength of ignorant sense comes from. It is common to all and does not depend on being blind or having sight. It can not replace rational or historical objectivity however ignorant.
It is probably the feeling that creationists may be, or seem to be using, rational and historical ignorance subjectively as if it were "objective common sense". This does not exist.
The sense is a "want" of the apperception. Lack of logic gives rise to a reason to understand this. Creationists have their own (hence two model view) rational and historical horizon, outside ignorant scientific sense. But since "common sense" only arises on account of a needed negativity prior to the experience, whatever is subjective in a creationist sense, as hereinthreadexplained can not address beyond a simple increase in data. For then the "logic" would be seperate from the "reason" AND "sense" (now not common but in qualitative tones).
If one follows out Kant's example of gold, which in his time was probably related to attempts of Newton and alchemists to transmute it, into the Kripkian ideas of natural kinds, then, the modern version acutally DID go against my own notion of "common sense" as I wanted to know of "this Earh", this salt that I stand on, not some other unknown world comparison, what the matter was. Mayr disbelieved the application of natural kinds to biology as well.
Really, however that is not science going against common sense but rather branced specialist science attempting to create a new sense (take nanotech etc) and at least for me failing, but then science,as opposed to any individual's "horizon" is never dependent on any one person, which is why ignorance can be scientific or learned or common.
Edited by Brad McFall, : sneaky program cut out ...
™ Version 4.2
