Ohayo goazaiimashita,

On rereading this, I see that I have lost the OP out of sight (long time
ago). I mostly speak from the outside of the Creatonist debate in the
original thread. That is why I think I have missed some points; and
maybe what I write is a bit irrelevant.

sry

Ah, this "a bit funny" is one of the tests I use in finding the
most probable context of a post. What context removes that "bit

The problem itself is a bit like someone who wonders how you can produce
straight rulers with exact inch marks,
and then reccommends finding a ruler to use as a benchmark. The chicken
and egg thing.
a) Science is unproblematic because of its measurable subject matter.
b) "Humanities" has a more problematic, unmeasurable subject matter.
c) We should, however, use the methods of science in the humanities.

Right. In subjects with no good empirical test, if you set out to
prove something, you will always succeed.

It's worse than that. It is like asking someone how long a meter is, and
he answers "Let me measure, in order to give you an exact answer .....
I'm applying the meter stick now .... well, well, well! - it seems it is
1 meter long." You only get out what you put in. There is no failure in
the apparatus, except that it is a closed loop ...

A view that helps
e.g. a revolutionary to make revolution works well for him, while a

is made (the revolution either succeeds or fails), one or the
other theory is confirmed (to the value of the one sample,
... Correct?

IMHO, no. Remember the core of pragmatism: We can't really know what is
"out there" (World 1), we only know the results of our actions.
Empiricism still implicitly purports to study reality "as it is".

To some degree we might consider purpose (the stated goal) as part of an
action; more precisely, the goal determines what is an "action" (a means
to the end) and not just "something happening", a random event or
inconsequential state changes outside the causal chain leading up the
desired end state.

In the "revolution" example, an ideology that permits the revolutionary
to hate "the oppressors" will be effective, if for nothing else then at
least as a motivator. If they are indeed hateful, he will find his
ideology validated. If they are not, he will hate them for having
oppressed him while in fact being weak and ineffectual, "undeserving".
He might actually _make_ them hateful, as people tend to behave as they
are treated, and so _create the confirmation of his own ideology_.

Since a dogma is a proposition about the world, and propositions about
the world are validated according to certain standards, the way to
safeguard the dogmata is to manipulate the standards such that they no
longer affect the content of dogma. This goes for rules of common sense,
evidence, logic etc.

In a scientist setting, the stated goal of science is to find truth.

In
natural science, i.e. under the assumption of the reality of Reality
(the dogma of empirical science), we see fit to accept certain
propositions, rules, procedures etc as necessary to find truth. One of
these rules is that everything can be changed if the result is truer
than it would be without this change; i.e. science is open to progress
and development: "All dogmata can be sacrificed." (Of course, in this
system it isn't a sacrifice, it is more like a catharsis.)

In this sense, what is "true" depends to some degree on our goal, our
intentions, our motivation for doing something, our purpose. Something
is true if it conforms to that purpose, if it does not, it isn't true.
This is very much Popper's criticism against pseudo-sciences (his words)
like psychoanalysis, which simply cannot be invalidated, as there is
always an ad hoc explanation at hand to resolve apparent contradictions.

.... was that an answer?

The same goes for science. Natural science only makes sense once we
posit the reality of reality, and since we want to make sense, we
posit
that when (preferably somewhat before) we start doing science.

I think of some favorite labeling here. We posit a context for
the reality of science. Within that context, science is real.

But we who like to do the meta-step like to say that it is only
one "context" <snip>

The above is why I posit a polarity in our minds, between what is true
and what is desirable.
And the desirable has (a motivational) primacy, using the true only to
achieve goals.
(I stumbled on this when I first began to wonder about sources of error.
How is it that people can make mistakes? What is a mistake? How does it
originate, how - and why - is it perpetuated? What is, e.g. "wishful
thinking"? What is (irrational) "hyper-rationality"?)

It is quite parallell to the creative/eliminative two step process.
Reality oriented search for truth gives us lists of things,
possibilities. If we didn't have any needs and desires, any motivation,
no direction for action, we could simply sit and read these computer
printouts about facts of the world, and be content. And if we didn't
need to accomodate physical laws and similar constraints, we could
simply wish and achieve. This is the ultimate goal, as I understand, of
magical thinking: how can you make your wishful thinking effective?
Butchering a cockerel? Yeah, right. You the scifi fan must have come
across novels where they have this transmogrification "materialyzer"
where you put in some shale and seawater from the beaches of the
otherwise empty, primordial planet, and that most useful device
rearranges the atoms to produce a steaming croissant and cafe au lait
served on a silver salver with today's "Times". Saves the author endless
pages of boring trivia like how to actually make a living on yon giant
liquid mercury planet.

No, in real life we pick from preferably viable alternatives, and
wishful thinking needs to be unwishful when actually grasping the world,
in order not to mis-invest scant resources.

Just as we need goals in
order to select among alternatives (have you read Damasio's (?)
"Descartes' Error"? He describes how the world's first lobotomy patient
lost much of his desires, but instead of ending in some sort of serene
nirvana, he ended up in Buridans hell, never being able to chose, to
prefer something above something else), we need realistic options to
select from. Enter intelligence. (Insert pun on favourite unfavourite
group here.)

There is nothing empirically observable in external reality

i.e.it is not mine. Be my guest (which is then perfectly unapt to say.
"Gorge yourself" doesn't sound very polite, though.)

But then everything in life is a game of
chance. Facts in our fact book must undergo the most rigorous

You presume rationality in the economic sense, i.e. the ability to
foresee all consequences and to be able to range them. Some cost in
being wrong, there, too.

Because in the religious context Truth *is* Reality and
vice versa. If you deny this you'll never get anywhere with
them.

Lucky me, then.
But I actually disagree. Even for Them, "God" is real, but "God is real"
is true. But perhaps I misunderstand you?

I do appreciate your translations.

There is that to say of professionalism, and be it only in Academia,
that it supplies terminology and referential shortcuts (or, philosophy
departments are just another jargon pit).
I think my namedropping is somewhat defensible in that it, at best,
provides you with some indexing of your knowledge, enabling you to
pedigree it (for your Credentials department) and research it further
(with more ease and precision) and to cross-reference as you meet it
later. I like it, it is like tap dancing for the mind.

Harping on philosophy - martial arts parallells, are you familiar with
the concept of "attitude adjustment"?
It's an old officers' trick: if you scream, people react rather
primordially - most often they get frightened.

Doormen use it on violent drunks, a "short, sharp shock" to make them
forget about the bottle they were just now going to smash (generally
cutting up their hand). I wonder what the BP equivalent of a slap is.