Affordable Access

SCIENCE, LANGUAGE AND ONTOLOGY: A BIRD IN THE HAND IS WORTH TWO IN THE BUSH

Authors
Publication Date
Keywords
  • Philosophy Of Language
  • Philosophy Of Mind
  • Philosophy Of Science
Disciplines
  • Philosophy
  • Psychology
  • Religious Science

Abstract

Microsoft Word - 5 4 cogprints comment 2 With regards to the referr A BIRD IN THE HAND IS WORTH TWO IN THE BUSH Marvin E. Kirsh With regards to the referral “our own theory of language” I, first, would be able to find no better starting point for all theory. Second, find that a deflating influence exists upon the common citizen with regards to the great complexity of ideas put forth upon himself and the environment that he must not only endure, but find his continuance from a positive application of its’ resources. A division between the human spirit, his theology, philosophy, and the creations of science from theory created and assembled as a (scientifically)dedicated subset of language that is composed from the perspectives of persons representing a small sample of a total possible diversity in language, is apparent. Science method, technology, with its’ mechanical logic as logically appealing, become instantiated, hence oppressive, and individually repressive psychologically to a more diverse outlook. Though humorous in suggestion, this conflict (of interests) might best, in as few words as possible, result as an entailment of the common phrase “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”-as science puts into the hand new tools , contrivances to endure nature, improve the human lot where as the gains of theology are always in the “proverbial bush”. It is in this sense that mankind comes to abuse natural resources, and replace his own resources with those defined by others. One’s impression of even an artistic creation, cannot be supplanted with the description and intention of the creating artist. Science, in order to find any empirical application must begin with the empirical. It is my opinion that it also cannot transcend the empirical enroute to explanation, and that in doing so is violating to the self as the creator of theory, and that such described theories are not valid. Objectivity, in terms of science, has no source of self objectivity but his own witness as a universally

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.