Apologists and Thomas Kuhn: A Love Story

[_MrStakhanovite]

Solid proof that I can predict the future. It's that magical thinking you know....

Or it could be that you are a fraud who doesn't understand anything he claims to.

[_Cicero]

Mormonism presents a "grand narrative" in a scientific sense which we are supposed to accept rationally, which means clearly I don't understand what Mormonism is.

I'm not the one who equated criticizing Mormonism to criticizing "a great swath of 20th century philosophy."

[_mfbukowski]

Solid proof that I can predict the future. It's that magical thinking you know....

Or it could be that you are a fraud who doesn't understand anything he claims to.

I must be a prophet or something.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

[_mfbukowski]

Mormonism presents a "grand narrative" in a scientific sense which we are supposed to accept rationally, which means clearly I don't understand what Mormonism is.

I'm not the one who equated criticizing Mormonism to criticizing "a great swath of 20th century philosophy."

I'm glad. That makes two of us.

[_dblagent007]

Bukowski, why don't you demonstrate that you correctly understand the philosophers you cite by pointing us to the writings you think support your understanding? In other words, put up or shut up, but don't just whine about it.

[_Darth J]

There are no facts, only interpretations.

That kind of makes fast and testimony a lot less meaningful, huh?

[_Darth J]

The usual M.O. around here is to pick the philosopher of the day when such a topic arises and an apologist has enough nerve to bring one up, and have everyone pile on repeating the same mantra "you don't understand his philosophy" until the apologist gives up re-writing the same post a hundred times demonstrating to each critic how in fact he does understand the philosophy and they don't.

You guys remember when David Bokovy claimed that Lao Tzu believed that all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole, and we totally gang-banged him for it?

Good times, good times.

[_MrStakhanovite]

You guys remember when David Bokovy claimed that Lao Tzu believed that all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole, and we totally gang-banged him for it?

Good times, good times.

/thread

[_mfbukowski]

Bukowski, why don't you demonstrate that you correctly understand the philosophers you cite by pointing us to the writings you think support your understanding? In other words, put up or shut up, but don't just whine about it.

Don't you mean just don't quine about it?

This is essentially what I believe and I have quoted it a million times.

If you understand where Rorty came from, the history behind his philosophy, his philosophical "genealogy" you will understand that I am right.

In a few short sentences, this video captures in my opinion, the nugget of the central insight.
One could not possibly capture it better than Rorty did here in 1 minute and 42 seconds.

All the philosophers I cited ultimately hold a similar view to this one. This view has great theological implications in my point of view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

[_mfbukowski]

There are no facts, only interpretations.

That kind of makes fast and testimony a lot less meaningful, huh?

For me that is what gives it any meaning whatsoever. You can't get beyond interpretations to anything "more" - there IS no "more".

That's why I joined the church.

I know. I don't understand Mormonism. I have only been a member 33 years, more than most of you have been alive.