>> Again, I have no problem with the "no religion, no politics" rule, 
>> as long
>> as it's applied _consistently_.

On the "no illogicals, no unknowables", Aristotle has something to say 
:-)
QM puts any of us who would seek to deal rationally with our 
surroundings pretty firmly into one of his two classes these days.

______


"Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary 
premises, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but 
that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a 
necessary deduction from the premises. The first school, assuming that 
there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that 
an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the 
prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the 
prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite 
series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there 
are primary premises, yet these are unknowable because incapable of 
demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. 
And since thus one cannot know the primary premises, knowledge of the 
conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge 
nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that 
the premises are true. The other party agree with them as regards 
knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they 
see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the 
ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the 
contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of 
demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must 
know the prior premises from which the demonstration is drawn, and 
since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be 
indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we 
maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative 
source which enables us to recognize the definitions."

                Aristotle, Posterior Analytics (Book 1, Part 3)



            Russell


____________

Found the above in passing while seeking a good definition of 
"infinite regress" for a friend (Why keep a Wiki and bark yourself?)

Courtesy of the, as usually, excellent Wikipedia

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist