Re: Intuitive

--- In [email protected], Nick Belane <ilovemoxjet@...> wrote:
>
> On 6 May 2013 14:23, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Brett, you're asking me to spoon feed you. Maybe I will be willing to do
> > this, if you will first summarize what you think I've said about the
> > mistake Popper made. If you can do that an show either insight/ability (my
> > judgement) your end, OR just good old effort, then I will seriously
> > consider a commitment to working with your questions.
> 
> Hibbsa,
> I honestly experience the same problems Brett is trying to list when I read
> your posts.
> 
> Could you just repost something from scratch with a numbered list of
> self-consistent short sentences in simple english which critic something
> specific about Popper's thoughts?
> We could have missed something you think you have already clarified in one
> of your previous posts.
> 
> That would be great!
> 
> Thanks,
> Piernicola
>

Brett, Piernicola, Alan, 

I sincerely appreciate and am grateful for the attention which I regard as generous and understand as time taken from busy lives. 

But I think it is rfeally important to establish an understanding what sort of criticism and/or questions is going to be beneficial. 

There is a strong relationship between the results of the study I've done and the results obtained by Deutsch and Popper. But the outcomes are very very different, for reasons that can be explained. 

Alan has mentioned that the Philosophy can handle initial Authorities or any other bad start. I agree with him, and if he would read the next paragraph or so below the one he gets that 'authorities' view from, he'll note I acknowledge that, but then mention that...for the  C&R to happen to fix the problems (say of Authorities or whatever) it actually has to happen, and in the instance I am speaking of it didn't and hasn't, and that's the point. 

This isn't going to be easy to get across. It won't work to create multiple questions/criticisms threaded  throughout posts the way Brett is doing. This is because, if something hasn't yet been understood, that non-understanding will thread through all those criticisms. 

It could work if you are happy that I will read all your criticisms and try to see the key point that is most common to all criticisms. Maybe that would work if it was acceptable to you? 

But with that, I would also like that we definitely focus on one thing as the centre. I think it's premature to focus on, for example, what I'm saying the right solution to Knowledge is. I answered that because it was asked.  

But really the important first componentis debating what occured by Popper's decision to make the  philosophical ideas relating to things like inductivism, empiricism, foundationalism, the centre piece of his 'view' into Science proper. That's key. 

I'm sorry if I've seemed unappreciative Brett ps....it's just that I do think I've already said a lot about what went wrong for Popper, and I do think it is reasonable to ask that an amount of effort goes into making some embryonic sense...even if it's scathing and unhappy. I don't mind....but just saying there's nothing makes it hard for me to be able to distinguish whether you've bothered. And if you hadn't bothered, then why would you suddenly start bothering? 

In any event.....whatever happens....I will continue as I get time to try to rephrase and improve. 

So I will definitely be doing what you ask....as and when. So hopefully whether now or later, we will be having a good debate.