Yes, there can be 'objective' knowledge, as 1+1 = 2 demonstrates.
actually that is ideal knowledge, and I've already noted that they
frequently claim objectivity because they have a knowledge that exists
outside of knowing beings, platonic forms and maths. However, 1+1=2 is
only the case in one set of axioms, granted it is the hegemonic set. There
are other counting systems and other mathematical systems in which isn't.
The history of mathematical systems is fascinating, but i'm not debating
it here... just pointing out that our culturally dominant mode of maths is
not necessarily universal, nor objective.
> There can
> be objective knowledge in the sense that the chemical make-up of granite is
> such-and-such, and that granite from different world regions have a make-up
> of e.g., such-and-such-&-andesite (which might make it a New Zealand rock),
>
That is empirical knowledge, you can claim it is objective but it hits the
black swan case. There are no black swans, until you see a black swan,
there is no granite like x, until you see granite like x. However, if you
want to go the definition route, then you hit the language problem of
wittgenstein and lyotard, which pushes you right back...
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|