>Yes, Objectivists make the senses an authority (in a sesnse). I think the
>bottom line is our senses, as there is no other way to get inside of us.
In a recent post I explained the difference between using the senses in an
inductive process and using the senses in the scientific process--how in
falsification you use the senses to interpret results of tests, while in
the inductive process you take the senses as a solid foundation from which
to draw conclusions.
>>In Popper's system, which makes the most sense
>>to me right now,
>Shall I claim that post-Objectivists use Popper as authority ?
No, anyone is free to try falsify Popper's ideas.
>>is that you don't use anything to justify what you think,
>>including the senses, since the senses do not always give reliable
>>information.
>Using nothing to justify your thinking, if I understand you correctly, is
to
>form ideas like "green rock girl as you 123 twenty"
What I meant by not needing to justify was that you don't need a burden of
proof if someone says, "how do you know?". You admit that you don't really
know. You don't need to justify what you think. However if you see a
counter example that indicates you think wrong, then admit it. And
statements like yours which seem nonsensical, cannot get falsified, since
they don't mean anything.
>>Instead you disprove a theory by trying to knock it down by
>>criticizing or testing.
>How can you disprove the above idea of mine?
You can't disprove it, that's why it's a useless statement.
>>This epistemology, which seems to be the most
>>useful, and is very stimulating, is not the same thing as believing that
>>what other's say matters more than your own judgement, since you are
>>evaluating arguments and results of tests.
>Can you give examples of this useful and stimulating method using some
cases
>from history?
How about if you give me an example of a scientific discovery in which this
method was not used?.
--David R.