Re: BHA: Epistemological relativism

["Marko Beljac" <beljac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Skyscrapers exist. But not in of themselves. They exist because we exist
> and we have a biological nature which enables them to exist. Therefore
> architecture must reduce to biology...


>
> An another.
>
> Skyscrapers exist. But not in of themselves. They exist because bricks
> exist
> and bricks have a physical nature which enables them to exist.
> While humans may put bricks in place and even may make bricks, bricks
> themselves consist
> of materials independent of biology. Therefore architecture must reduce to
> materials science.

If the laws of physics were different we would still exist and and so could
skyscrapers? I don't think so.
>
> The last two reductions contradict each other. Yet the premises are true
in
> each case. Therefore the basic structure of the argument itself is flawed.

This is of course false. Biology does ultimately reduce to materials
science. But anyway what is a brick? I have yet to come across naturally
occuring bricks. To my knoweledge, perhaps I am naive, bricks are made by
us. If we accept the above argument then bricks are naturally occuring
material entities that self assemble according to the laws of physics. I
have yet to come across that law, perhaps I should socially construct one.

At any rate, I really must get some sleep. Of course my need for sleep
arises as a result of my biological nature. My need for sleep is not
socially constructed. I really, really need to get some sleep!!

Marko.






     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---