I think cane toads arent in the domain of epistemology, period. Edit - well unless ontology and epistemology are synthesized like in a certain dangerous philosophy out there.
They are in biology and possibly ontology. But a cane toad isnt a piece of knowledge primarily unless one goes to insane lengths to assert that there is nothing but text.
“There wasnt any consensus when Copernicus formulated things”
There sure was a whole deal of consensus around everything Cop used to arrive at his conclusions, to even know what to measure for.
Like Galileo. He designed all sorts of experiments out of vanity, but he never actually performed any of them. He already knew they would work.
I don’t believe Faust means just any old consensus. He refers rather, I believe, to the very possibility of consensuality. It comes with a sort of clause: “if you’re being honest, then”
Unavoidable consensus, say.
Do things fall into eachother?
Yes. Yes they do fall into eachother.
Science.
These are consensi rather than facts, because really, to establish a fact, epistemology needs to work. Like what IS the thing really? Fruitless question 99.999999999% of the time. Only time I ever seen it not be was when Will to Power was postulated. And it is an answer to the only askeable question in terms of what is: what is ANYHTING?
And you can’t infer anything from it really. And generally follows the list heere, except the language thing which on its own doesn’t stand. Philosophy being about language. That’s like saying green is about color. I mean yeah, ok…
But Faust’s task is generally about peeling the dirt from philosophy, separating philosophy from headless chickenry, and in that sense it is correct. Philosophy is only about postulating, never about giving or to rip directly from the tree of truth, so to speak.
I say this and then so this has never occured, and as an event was only ever described in Jewish lore regarding what God did to people. But the wole lesson from Judaism is that when that happens, it is simply not communicable or even really possible except when allmighty God himself, to whom nothing is impossible etc., does it to you.
And even THEN God is never really described as doing that. It is sort of implied that if he wanted to and humans were 1000000 smarter he could, but even to Moses he gives laws and things, never THIS.
I disagree. I think all that is not actually science, but more like social sciences. How can we say things so that people will buy this book? Thats consensus.
Whats science is completely obliterating the consensus - what Faust calls philosophy. And indeed there was, in serious peoples (the Greeks) no difference. And since Nietzsche it is back to that seriousness.
I was checking for regular use of the word consensus and I think Im totally right in this.
You can claim that it really means something else but that doesnt have my consent. Hahah. Deal with that now.
See this is all about moronic idiots agreeing with each other. Not about Newton or Archimedes or anyone who mattered because they actually had the power to figure something out. Thats what science is. Figuring shit out. And invariably it takes endless years before anyone who hasnt figured it out concedes that it may, despite his dumb ass pride, be the actual case. Maybe these morons then think that thats the criterium for it to be science, no, just, ugh- naw man. Its the scientist and his science. That doesnt even involve any language until he has to get some less smart people to make use of the power he disclosed.
“Did Archimedes not have a whole lore about water behind him to make water opinions on?”
lore of water?
He just sat in a tub and noticed displacement.
Lore doesnt figure into science. If thats what you think sure I can see you think consensus is what its all about. Lore is surely some consensual stuff.