My Participation on the Forum
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:06 pm
I feel that before being able to comment and participate on this forum any further I really need to clarify some things about my general philosophy and thinking style.
I am not a rationalist, atheist or "Science" advocate, at least in the sense most people who identify with these labels are.
Science and "evidence" may ultimately be social constructs that aren't fundamentally different than any other social construct, whether they be found in religion, art, or philosophy. Although I haven't read their books yet, I've read enough about them to see myself as leaning toward Feyeraband, Kuhn, Sheldrake, and a number of other Science-skeptics. That doesn't mean I think Science is total bunk or that it hasn't been extremely useful to man through the technology that developed from it, but I don't see it as answering the "Big Questions".
Logic has its limitations too. I'm familiar with "fallacies"---there are formal and informal---but no, I haven't memorized every single one of them and I don't even necessarily acknowledge that they really are "fallacies". I'll research the question as I have time. We'll see.
Besides leaning toward science-skepticism I suppose I also lean toward "epistemological anarchy". But again, I have yet to fully explore this concept, and it may take years. I'm not on anybody's clock. I'll explore it as leisurely as I please. I also see my thinking as much more heuristic and dialectical than rationalist or empiricist. I'm interested big pictures, not so much hairsplitting and punctilious logical procedures.
As I believe I wrote in an earlier post, I'm not into "debate". I'm not into games of one-up-man-ship and "winning" arguments. This is just my impression, and no, I can't "prove" it, but the type of discussion I see on the Internet tend to be very rushed and aggressive, both sides needing to "defeat" the other in some contest. I have neither the time, energy or interest to play such games. I think ethical and social questions are very nebulous, and possible answers to them very elusive. I explore, not debate. What theories I do come up, I don't claim are "proved". They're just the best model I see at present.
So, from the first guideline of this forum it doesn't seem like I can really follow the rules of this forum in either letter or spirit. I'm not doing this to be contrarian or uncooperative. Just trying to follow the main rules of this forum would be too inauthentic, laborious and rigid for me. Maybe I'm just too sloppy and lethargic for it. If I seem to ignore anybody, don't take it personally. There's a remote possibility I'll pick up the thread, but by no means any guarantee.
I hope to try to comment a little more often on this forum, but I welcome feedback to this post. I also feel the Vegan Atheist has a right to ban me if he wants. As a libertarian, I believe in private spaces, and I try to respect the spirit and letter of the rules of those spaces and the person who created them. Also, if you feel it'd be pointless to engage me, with my sloppy, "irrational" epistomology, I take no offense if you ignore. No need to respond out of mere politeness.
I am not a rationalist, atheist or "Science" advocate, at least in the sense most people who identify with these labels are.
Science and "evidence" may ultimately be social constructs that aren't fundamentally different than any other social construct, whether they be found in religion, art, or philosophy. Although I haven't read their books yet, I've read enough about them to see myself as leaning toward Feyeraband, Kuhn, Sheldrake, and a number of other Science-skeptics. That doesn't mean I think Science is total bunk or that it hasn't been extremely useful to man through the technology that developed from it, but I don't see it as answering the "Big Questions".
Logic has its limitations too. I'm familiar with "fallacies"---there are formal and informal---but no, I haven't memorized every single one of them and I don't even necessarily acknowledge that they really are "fallacies". I'll research the question as I have time. We'll see.
Besides leaning toward science-skepticism I suppose I also lean toward "epistemological anarchy". But again, I have yet to fully explore this concept, and it may take years. I'm not on anybody's clock. I'll explore it as leisurely as I please. I also see my thinking as much more heuristic and dialectical than rationalist or empiricist. I'm interested big pictures, not so much hairsplitting and punctilious logical procedures.
As I believe I wrote in an earlier post, I'm not into "debate". I'm not into games of one-up-man-ship and "winning" arguments. This is just my impression, and no, I can't "prove" it, but the type of discussion I see on the Internet tend to be very rushed and aggressive, both sides needing to "defeat" the other in some contest. I have neither the time, energy or interest to play such games. I think ethical and social questions are very nebulous, and possible answers to them very elusive. I explore, not debate. What theories I do come up, I don't claim are "proved". They're just the best model I see at present.
So, from the first guideline of this forum it doesn't seem like I can really follow the rules of this forum in either letter or spirit. I'm not doing this to be contrarian or uncooperative. Just trying to follow the main rules of this forum would be too inauthentic, laborious and rigid for me. Maybe I'm just too sloppy and lethargic for it. If I seem to ignore anybody, don't take it personally. There's a remote possibility I'll pick up the thread, but by no means any guarantee.
I hope to try to comment a little more often on this forum, but I welcome feedback to this post. I also feel the Vegan Atheist has a right to ban me if he wants. As a libertarian, I believe in private spaces, and I try to respect the spirit and letter of the rules of those spaces and the person who created them. Also, if you feel it'd be pointless to engage me, with my sloppy, "irrational" epistomology, I take no offense if you ignore. No need to respond out of mere politeness.