>I don't think so. It is certainly widely viewed as confusion,
>between epistemology and ontology, but that particular
>dichotomy can be questioned, and there is only a logical
>fallacy if it is accepted without question. Personally, it
>makes a great deal of sense to me to connect the
>question about whether something exists with the
>question as to how we can know about it. Science
>certainly does so, and it is only classical Western
>philosophy (as far as I know) that does not.
I am not talking about theoretical things that can't be
detected. I'm talking about things that existed *before*
anyone knew about them, like the earth before there was any
life.
>This may be an appropriate point for me to drop in
>one of my pet theories: most people are either
>subjectivists or objectivists[1]. That is, they tend
>towards one or other of the poles of a dimension of
>personality, like Jung's ones of thinking vs feeling,
>neurotic vs ??, extraverted vs introverted. Those
>who say that the concept of objective reality
>derives from subjective experience are subjectivists.
>Those who say that subjective experience derives
>from objective reality are objectivists. Those who
>are balanced, tending towards neither extreme, say
>you can look at it either way. Comments, please?
Do you know of anyone that would disagree with either
statement?
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/