From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Feb 14 2005 - 23:34:56 GMT
ERIN: LOL
damned if you don't define something damned if you do
(or should I say confuse)
RON:
I'm glad you aprreciated what I was doing here. If you can expand the
meaning of metaphysics, then I see no reason why you could not also expand
the meaning of empirical to better reflect modern metaphysical views.
ERIN: I just thought it was funny because I went from a post from Marsha getting upset with Scott with not defining something he thought couldn't be defined to your complaint to Scott of defining something too much or something along that lines.
There are different kinds of experiences. I think it is useful to limiting the meaning of empiricism to help distinguish experiences. I am not going to relist all the examples Scott gave of experiences that would clearly not be empirical to me but if you want to expand empirical to all of them then answer these questions for me
1) do you really not see a difference in these types of experiences?
2)if you do see a difference then why not distinguish them?
RON: I am wondering where any advancement would come if we kept science to
the "strict empirical scientists?"
BTW, if it would rid the world of psychologists, I might agree. :o)
ERIN: I'm glad you appreciate what I am doing:-P But now we have some context for your nutty idea---- Is there a specific experience you want the word empirical expanded to-- is the Virgin Mary riding a motorcycle in your backyard again? Just kidding!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 14 2005 - 23:39:10 GMT