[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
... To say that truth is relative to a particular historical context simply means that truth is not eternal, that it evolves, that it is never final.  But that doesn't mean that truth is JUST a matter of perspective. Provisional truths are still constrained by empirical reality.

Marsha replied:
Or stated another way stating it that truth is relative to an individual's history of static value patterns.  Your use of JUST is pejorative, and nonsense. I don't see that this is saying something that negates the fact that static quality is relative.

dmb says:
You don't see how empirical restraints negate relativism? You don't see how empirical reality keeps our truths from being JUST a matter of perspective? This is not pejorative nonsense. This is the central point that you need to comprehend. Relativism and empiricism are not compatible at all. The relativist does not say that all truths are equally good. He simply thinks there is no legitimate way to adjudicate between rival truths. The empiricist says there IS a way to test these truths. They are tested in experience and they work or they don't.   



dmb said:
They (truths) still have to agree with experience and function as the best possible explanation as we move into further experience. 



Marsha replied:
Who is doing the agreeing?  How do they do this agreeing?   Who judges that agreement has been reached?


dmb says:
Seriously? Wow. Agreement with experience has nothing to do "who" agrees. Agreement between an idea and experience simply means that the idea works when it is put into practice. Apparently, you're even more confused than I imagined. No wonder you're always evading the substance of the matter. 

The rest of your response was even worse and responding to it would be too cruel even for me.