Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick  Good to read you reply this time, too, Lloyd. Just a short reply from my side due to Thanksgiving preparations and the likes.
The abstract is not the only opposition to science; within science opposition exists too with science. That's the pyramid: at the basis there is a fundamental opposition on the same level. In top we find the unification of all positions — but only in the abstract. |
Fredrick, IMO, if you realize the abstract will be made factual, with the completion of scientific knowledge, then you may have a new, and different formula, to work with. The only reason present speculative science contains abstract thought/theory, is its present incompleteness, however; when completed, IMO, of which, I think you are leaving out the possibility, of eliminating all present scientific abstract necessities. This is how I truly see the world. I think it was Noan Chomsky, the major linguist, who stated this very fact, "In the final stages of knowledge acquisition, the facts will eliminate the abstracts."___In so many words... Yes, we still have a ways to go, but I for one, am fully confident of this evolving truth. So, as to you and I's thinking, we are still on opposite sides of the abstract/factual debate. To me, all fundamental debates must be founded on a methodology, which is the foundation of science; and yet abstraction lacks any such fundamental foundation___It's far too loose an explanation format, to explain any type of reality, except the exaggerated, when considered as an all inclusive explanator of understanding___It fails miserably...i.e., no fundamental methodology...
Lloyd