Dear Klaus,
You're proposing that I should have checked with you to exemplify my
own meaning.
A visit to the list archive will clarify the sequence of the thread:
I posted a definition to define a term I used prior to your response.
I introduced the word "radical" into the thread to describe my view
of your comments. When I was chastised for describing your views as
radical, I presented a definition to explain my meaning. Then Keith
responded. At that point, you replied to Keith.
Before that point, I used a definition to exemplify what I meant. I
did not ignore your use of the word radical when I posted the
definition. You had not used it at that point. You used the word
"radical" later.
Your statement that "your dictionary is not as bad as i thought" must
be sardonic. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is hardly "my"
dictionary. It is the dictionary that is in widest use as the desk
dictionary of university presses, academic publishers, and publishers
of scholarly journals.
As you saw, though, I chose definition 3a to exemplify my meaning.
The definition you prefer -- and the meaning to which Keith refers --
appears earlier. I gather that you intend to be radical in the sense
of gruendlich. I just don't think you achieved the goal in this case.
You seem to be making assumptions on view views. I agree that the
world cannot "be observed without an observer" or "known without a
knower." What I say is that there is a world that exists independent
of and over against any observer and knower. This is Herbert Blumer's
view, and it is consistent with George Herbert Mead's views. I've
asked you several times whether you believe that a world exists
outside our knowledge of the world -- I've never been able to get a
clear answer on that specific question.
If you'd answer that question in a clear unambiguous way, that would
help to clear up our epistemological differences.
In your view, is there a world that exists independent of our
knowledge of the world, whether or not we observe it?
Yes?
No?
You may be right in suspecting I have not read the entire literature
of the new radical constructivism over the past thirty years, but I'm
probably not as ignorant as you think. If you think I've missed
something that will help me to avoid epistemological traps, please
post the citations.
During this same era, the ideas of George Herbert Mead and Herbert
Blumer have been attracting renewed attention, and they seem to hold
up fairly well.
Is there a world that exists independent of our knowledge of the
world, whether or not we observe it?
I look forward to your answer.
Yours,
Ken
--
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
i am glad your dictionary is not as bad as i thought, judging by what
your quoted from it. from what you now say, you borrowed the
authority of a dictionary only to justify the meanings you intended,
by ignoring how i used the word "radical." if you would have been
uncertain about what i meant, you could have asked me. as the author
i am the authority on what i wish to say. but i am not even
deviating from the english etymology: "radical" = root, proceeding
from the root or base, not yet seen (as are leaves). the german
meaning is much the same "radical" = grund, gruendlich, der sache auf
den grund gehen.
you say: "The argument to evolutionary fitness offers one explanation
for this epistemology that I have not seen before, at least not in
philosophy of science arguments on whether we can know something
"real" about the world." well, you may want to familiarize yourself
with radical constructivism, which has made much progress during the
last 30 years in developing an epistemology from roots in piaget and
vico. it does not make the metaphysical assumption of a world that
can be observed without an observer, that can be known without a
knower. it has managed to avoid the epistemological traps you are
struggling with.
|