[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[X Acto]

>  Ron:
> It's all the power of persuasion. It's all a rhetorical arguement. Thats the
> point that is trying to be made. The best rhetorical arguements, the most
> persuasive are those "predicated" on first hand immediate empirical
> experience.


Tuukka:
If you say so. But I am not persuaded by arguments that only make something look fancy without telling, what it is - so for me, this just begs the question.
 
Ron:
You are missing the general meaning of what I'm saying about explanation and truth statements.Almost
purposely. Probably because it undermines your ambitions.

  Tuukka earlier:
  I understand if "subjectivity" is thought of as a box, in which we can
  put anything we want, we can just put logos there and leave it at that.
  But that would be like running over ZAMM with LILA because the task to
  make them resonate seemed difficult.

  Ron earlier: (this is Tuukka earlier actualy)
  If physics is objective, and logos is not, what is the point of saying
  Aristotle was being objective, when he defined force as something that
  keeps bodies in motion, and that Galilei was also being objective, when
  he defined force as something that causes changes in velocity and
  acceleration, but is not a requirement for motion? Were both Aristotle
  and Galilei being objective, because they were using a scientific
  method? Were their scientific methods themselves subjective?



Tuukka:
I never said logos is not objective. I said the opposite.
 
Ron:
That's interesting because that's your own statement above not my own. Check.
Now you are contradicting your own statements. This raises the question of
whether or not you know what you are talking about, can you understand why
I might think that.


  Ron earlier:
  Aristotle was after clarity in meaning. He was dealing with the problem
  of relativism also. The good is what makes some things better than others
  it makes some things truer than others. Subjectivity is more like a pair of glasses
  one interprets experience through. Thats why he wrote the "meta-physics"
  you should read it some time.
  Aristotle understood that scientific observation was a subjective enterprise.
  All explanation is. The focus was on clarity in meaning, does the explanation
  accurately provide meaning to the observation, how well does it explain
  observable phenomena? How successful are it's predictions?
  Tuukka,I highly recommend doing the homework. Research will
  help out tremendously with alot of your questions.



Tuukka:
Okay, but let's first make sure you know what I'm doing in the first place.

 
Ron replies:
What are you doing Tuukka? what does SOQ explain with greater clarity? what is it's
usefulness? how is it valuable? 
 
.


 ..