>> In objectivism there can be no ultimate truth, just improving (or making more
>> useful) models of reality, since we have limited knowledge in an infinite
>> universe.
>I had yet to hear this about objectivism. With so much talk about how
>objectivism the *best* way to comnstruct the models, I don't think I ever
>heard you or Tad say that they were inherantly limited and inacurate
>models like all models are.
As far as I can tell, no one's model has complete accuracy, but some models
seem more open to revision and improvement than others.No model in particular is
necessary since all that matters is the cosmic thinking process which can
invent/discover better and better models. For instance, 'logic' wasn't necessary
to discover 'logic', but this thinking process was necessary. The problem of bad
models which have no room for improvement, (ie. Buddhism, memetic jello theory,
Jung, etc.) might not be so much the model but the people defending these models
as a protest against reality and the open-ended thinking process based on
reality--like a fish protesting against water.
A common characteristic of such models which rigidly oppose evolution
seems to be the notion that there exists a final truth. 'Final truth', while not
a necessary component of objectivism, exists in objectivism in the form of a
mind virus. This mind virus makes changing, complicated, and infinite aspects of
reality seem as though they were static, simple, and finite. For instance, many
objectivists have made rationalizations that the universe is closed and finite,
so therefore absolute truth is possible. And, many have tendencies to
overgeneralize and make snap judgements about things without further
investigation.
.
> The mind can cover for the inaccuracies of
>the senses, but the senses have primacy over the mind? This isn't clear
>to me.
. "Senses have primacy", means that sense data comes to the brain first, then
the brain deals with it to form a concept. Concepts get revised to explain
apparent contradictions between sense data.
--David