up a level
post article
search
admin
main
parent
|
Re: Completing the Revolution
by Scott Bakker on Thursday December 05, @01:17PM
|
| If metaphors are a semantic category, and if semantics is nowhere near being naturalized (which is to say, accounted for in scientfically acceptable terms), then how can Lakoff's conclusion be anything other than yet one more philosophical entry on a long and probably interminable debate? The problem here lies in the term 'Cognitive Science,' which, although it proceeds by hypothesis and shares certain procedural similarities with the natural sciences, is more akin to alchemy than to chemistry. It cannot even provide a scientific explanation for it's fundamental category: cognition. This is not to say it's worthless - alchemy was a necessary precondition of chemistry - only that it's limits need to be recalled.
That said, I am NOT espousing mathematical platonism. The bottom line is that NOBODY knows, not really, so why not bite the bullet and be a mathematical agnostic? |
| Post Reply |
Important Stuff:
Note: Fields with bold titles are required.
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads,
Read other people's messages before posting your own to
avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your
message is about.
Please do not post offtopic, inflammatory, inappropriate, illegal,
or offensive comments. Repeat offenders will be sanctioned.
|
