>Dear Nick
>
>Let me go through your list:
1) Intuition: surely intuition is not sufficient for claiming that a
proposition about the world is either true or false. The mere fact that you
and I have conflicting intuitions shows this. We are then left with the
problem of how to deal with conflicting intuitions. I think that
adjudication between conflicting intuition requires that we test the
intuitions against evidence. This is science (unless somebody can show me
an alternative way of testing intuitions against evidence that makes sense).
2) Rule of thumb. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I understand 'rule
of thumb' as a procedural algorythm based on a distillation of knowledge.
I don't understand how this can help us sort true from false statements
about the world.
3) New paradigm research. I don't know what this means.
4) Visionary insight. What I said about intuition applies here. How do
you separate true from false visionary insights?
5) Hermeneutics. Again, how do you separate true from false interpretations?
6) Deconstruction. I've never understood what this term really means (it
has alway seemed to me nothing more that the abrogation of intellectual
responsibility, but perhaps someone can enlighten me).
7)A priori reasoning. Yes, this is valid, but only for logical truths
rather than empirical truths. I can correctly reason a priori that 'If x
is a triangle than x has thre sides' because 'having three sides' is part
of the definition of being a triangle.
Surely, our main concern in this discussion is not logical, definitional
truth, it is the reality of our clients lives and the work that we do with
them.
"I notice that you smuggle in the word 'hypotheses', which is of course
part of the scientific method; I >talked only about 'statements'". Fine.
I'm happy to keep it to 'statements'.
>
>Cheers
David
http://sites.netscape.net/davidsmithdavids/homepage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|