Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!texbell!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!excelan!unix!chips.sri.com!ellis
From: ellis@chips.sri.com (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: re anti-rationalism
Message-ID: <8211@unix.SRI.COM>
Date: 19 Jan 90 16:21:47 GMT
Sender: news@unix.SRI.COM
Reply-To: ellis@chips.sri.com.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Berkeley Private Language Institute
Lines: 21

> Gerry Gleason

>There is no debate on this.  But in a sense, what is really true is
>irrelevant because we have no direct access to it or even to a true
>metric of how wide or narrow the gap is. 

    What is the cognitive content of this suspicious notion "direct
    access" that disqualifies perception or introspection from being
    "direct access to reality"? 

> We have no way of knowing that all our current theories aren't one
> vast detour away from the real truth.  

    Perception isn't a theory. Neither is introspection.

>To assert anything else is to claim omniscience. 

    This sounds pretty crazy to me. Just how does the claim that one
    knows something commit oneself to the claim that one knows everything?
   
-michael