THOMAS TNF, on 25 Feb 1999 you posted to me (Message 385):

Jacob, you wrote:

Can you tell me more about this "The Good and The True"? You use a lot of terms and titles that provide little information of what you mean (unless you mean to be obscure). You say they are based on Evolution, and so, from this, I take it that they are writings on the origin of man or perhaps cosmology?

Thomas, every new approach to the existing demands new terminology, as a newborn has to be identified with a new name. By necessity, philosophic subjects employ "obscure" terms, but not for well-informed people like you. Plato had a special feeling for a 'trio': The GOOD, the TRUE, and the BEAUTY. This trio appears in many old and also in contemporary writings. Reading last week "Tuesdays With Morrie" I found the trio casually utilized in a philosophical dialogue. A recent BBC program mentioned it, too.
I published in my Homepage at Geocities essays on THE GOOD and on THE TRUE, which I reposted here at Delphi. Both essays are based on evolutionary discoveries, having nothing to do with Plato. The pending essay on THE BEAUTY is based on the BIG BANG. In a peculiar way, it is connected to Plato, as he delved on SYMMETRY.

And how does the discovery of Archaea serve to prop this cosmology theory? Sure, it's a great scientific find, but hardly something that a person would use as a major theme in cosmology or even origin of man. By the way, the discovery of Archaea is not that "cutting edge," having been established several decades ago.

Archaea (an 'obscure name' not of my making) has not to do with cosmology or with man, but with the development of the D-SP essay on The Good, actually with: Good, Bad, and Evil (please see: 'BEHAVE!')

You also mentioned that the "intuitive discovery" (a divine revelation of sorts?) will connect "cosmos" and "cosmetics." I don't know if you are being facetious or if there is a language barrier, but this is taking etymology to extremes. Sure, they have the same root word kosmein, meaning to arrange or order, but integrating the Big Bang with Maybelline lipstick is taking things a bit far. You might also want to write a theory combining herpes and fever blisters with herpetology, the study of reptiles...delve into "things that creep" (herpein means to creep).

I have explained intuition in a physical way, basing it on complex proteins that I call 'Super-proteins.' Maybelline lipstic and other cosmetic products are descendants of THE BEAUTY. Once the latter principle was created at the BB, the concept of beauty derived many off-shoots: they are 'recursive subjects' for the "Turing machine."
The blistering disease called "Herpes zoster" has a serpentine look. It is a question of symmilarity, to be used in an analogy: Herpes Zoster-Successive blisters is analogous, by the attribute of symmilarity, to Serpent-Sinuous advance. This is Aristotle's stuff, as you know. Please refer to "The Game Of Analogies" at: ANALOGIES

... I an taking a dynamic-scientific approach. Dynamic, because it is not written in closed texts. Anyone can contribute to it. Scientific, because it utilizes FACTS for its creation.

Can you clarify the term "dynamic?" In English, it means the property of continuous change or advancement. The term "Dynamic Scientific" is redundant. Science is always dynamic, an ever self-correcting and information-accruing process.

Science is dynamic; not so a given School of Philosophy. Neoplatonism was not a dynamic advance of Plato's ideas, just new ideas added to his.
D-SP is dynamic-scientific: its ideas constitute a revolutionary change, based on advancing scientific discoveries. Thus, D-SP is not just another "school" of philosophy: it is an EMERGENT. It is philosophy at its cuspid. Other schools will be based on it; they will be RESULTANTS. D-SP is 'for all the centuries.'

As for Ontology, it is a term with different denotations in Biology and classic philosophy. I avoid it, and even more the term 'Metaphysics.' Empirical? Much more than that, verging on 'intuition.' I have attempted to explain Intuition on D-SP's framework...

I am curious. When is ontology ever mentioned in biology? And, how is it understood in the context of biology? Perhaps you mean "ontogeny?"

You're absolutely right! I was truly mixing-up the two terms, having the same etymology, and being I basically a 'biology man,' a physician. Yes, Ontology is the philosophical study of Being --as part of Metaphysics, as understood by Socratic-age Philosophy: the First Principle, the study of the abstract IDEA, FORM, of PHYSICS, i.e., of everything objective.
Well, thank you!

Also, can you please define "intuition?" Is this a mystical notion? You'll have to explain a lot of the terms you use in detail (especially the suspiciously capitalized or quoted ones); otherwise our ideas in this discussion become completely incommensurable.

I capitalize words with the intention of making them proper names, not promiscuous ones. I probably fail in the attempt. For instance, I capitalized Biology, but not classic philosophy, because it is not a proper name of a given school of philosophy. I wouls write: Spinoza's Philosophy, not philosophy, because the latter might be understood by a (promiscuous) connotation: the way Spinoza, as a person --not as 'philosopher'-- understood the world.

Epistemology is not the core of science, which axiomatically must be sound. The core is the use of the scientific method, which should be applied in every area of human activities that demand accuracy.

Elron responded:

Jacob, the scientific method is an application of empiricism. Empiricism is an epistemology. In other words, the scientific method came about because of epistemological progress. How do we know the scientific method is beneficial? How do we know the scientific method yeilds knowledge? Those are epistemelogical questions. You are attempting to turn things up side down.

To the above written you responded:

Empirical means experientially, not experimentally obtained. It is not an epistemology, but a method for obtaining knowledge. The scientific method advances epistemology...

Jacob, let's clear up some terms. In the English language, epistemology is defined as the branch of philosophy that investigates the origin and nature of having and obtaining knowledge. Empiricism is denoted as the view that experience (through the senses) is the only source of knowledge...

I would find clearer, in any language, to state: " 'Epistemology' refers to all aspects of knowledge." " 'Empiricism' refers to a specific way of acquiring knowledge: by means of sensory experience."
Thus, one does not enrich Epistemology, which is basically a classification. One enriches knowledge, either by: a) the empirical way, acumulating sensual experiences and interpreting them as best suitable or possible; b) the scientific way, which embodies the 'scientific method' demanding rigurous controls and replication of the results.
Whatever previous definitions, it is essential to advance, and not be chained by old definitions.

The advances in cloning allow performing rigurous experiments not possible before. Suppose you wish to study the effects of certain procedure in animals genetically close to humans, rats being so considered. Before, you had to have the control group, demanding a large number of animals, due to their individual genetic differences. Nowadays, using cloned rats, the control group is true at an individual level!
Also, we are born with archetypal knowledge, at the level of the Collective Unconscious. So that, evidently again, empiricism deals with just one way of acquiring knowledge. Evolution facilitated the ability to speak, anatomically present in the human brain. Writing is an artifact, made by man a short time ago. It is not in the brain at birth, it is easily lost by brain damage.

...(empiricism)... is therefore an epistemology, one among many. The scientific method roughly outlined is the systematic method of observing phenomena, making hypotheses, testing these hypotheses by observing further phenomena under conditions, and then back again to making hypotheses. It's a very empirical method in that knowledge is confirmed by observation. In summary, the scientific method is a subset of epistemology. You speak as if science and epistemology are competing notions on the same level.

Empiricism is defined by Epistemology as a way of knowing. Science is not a subset, but another way of knowing, actually the supreme way. It cannot be an empirical method, axiomatically. Science is dealt with in Epistemology. They cannot compete, nor collaborate; they are not at different levels, they are just names, whose meanings have been defined. Scientific findings are not confirmed by observation but by replicability.

I was an empirical doctor until I abandoned medical practice for one year to learn Basic Science. I became a scientifically educated doctor...

The way it usually works here in America, is that you learn the basic sciences first and then proceed on to obtaining a medical degree.

Rik, it is the same everywhere... I learned the Basic Sciences at the beginning. After graduating and starting to practice, Medicine, as an applied science, had changed radically, due to the advances of that decade: I started medical studies in 1943. In 1957 I studied only Basic Sciences at Tulane, and then proceeded to Salt Lake City to become a Clinical Hematologist. I'm a self-made researcher, word-wide renowned since 1967 in the fields of Hematology and Nutrition. A discovery of mine was considered as the most important contribution to Nutrition of that year. And all that happened in Cali, Colombia, South America.

Communication is most efficient when clarity and coherency of language is valued over postmodernistic buzzwords.

That is one the guiding principles of D-SP. Please see: "LINGUISTING COMMUNICATION (What We Talk About, And How)."