Recent content by JansenDowel

Also, I've said this before, but as Karl Popper explained, we discover true knowledge through a process of conjecture and criticism.

Its not important unless you can point to the problem it poses. You haven't stated the problem directly, so ill take a guess at what you think it is. The problem is something like this: "if we can't observe reality directly, then how can we be certain of anything." The answer is that we can't...

This does not mean we can't understand reality and know what is in it though...

Lol easy. Show why it doesn't make sense. Do you have any idea how many revisions the axioms within geometry and number theory went through? What about the controversies within Set theory? Clearly not.

Oh no. Absolutely not.

I don't know what you mean by "on the level of physics -> quantum physics". What I said is all 3 require a process of conjecture and criticism to discover truth. A mathematician must go through a process conjecture and criticism to discover axiomatic truths. Scientists and philosophers must...

We do know how they are connected though... They all require creative conjecture and criticism. You cant generate mathematical axioms without a bit of creative speculation and a lot of criticism. Likewise you can't generate philosophical and scientific theories without a bit of creative...

I doubt it... Epistemology is about reason, not science. Science is merely a branch of reason, a species of reason if you will. Epistemology is so much bigger than science will ever be.

But why does philosophy suck? Epistemology has not been sucked up by mathematics or science. Neither has moral philosophy..

Absolutely. One of its lessons is that you can't have science without philosophy. The 'scientific method' is itself a philosophy about how to discover truth about.

C&R is not about science...

Rubbish. Do you know David Deutsch? He's a philosopher and physicst.

I said conjecture and refutation not falsification. Now you're just making stuff up. Just stop.

I'm not sure about that. We are looking for reasons to believe that morality is objective/subjective. If morality is about oughts, the next question to ask is: can you be wrong about what you think you ought to do?

In fact, The Open Society and its Enemies is a book entirely about ethics and morality. With the scant knowledge you have of his work, you should at least know that much.