[WikiEN-l] Idealism

[Ray Saintonge]

stevertigo wrote:

>--- George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>I think you're misinterpreting that. 
>>It would be good if every fact in WP was referenced.
>>    
>>
>But are all references the same? How do we distinguish between references?
>
>"References" seems to include to other web pages which people can quickly verify 
>but may not be quite authoritative. Voluminous books which may be considered
>authoritative but might only found in the dusty libraries of elite collections.
>
ALL references need to be viewed critically.  When for one reason or 
another we claim this reference good and that one bad that too should be 
a claim that is subject to verifiability. 

>Face it: even where a source is extremely old, and therefore considered "canonical"
>such often show the limitations and biases of the time and culture wherin they 
>were written. 
>
e.g. 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.

>Note the difference between a reference and a quotation, either by a
>respected philosopher whose codification has come to be a canonical one, or by
>a claimed authority on the subject. There is a huge subjective variance here.
>
In some cases the "authority" represented the herd instinct of his 
time.  Establishing a canonical Bible was a major political undertaking 
for the church of the time.  No work of the evangelists are known to 
exist in their original hand.

>For example, Augustine, who had no physics credentials whatsoever, was perhaps the 
>first to explain the nature of time as having 'begun with the creation of the 
>universe, before which there was no time.' His assertion was based in religious 
>terms of course, but nevertheless came some years before physical theories.
>Is he not an "authority"? Or is he not a canonical authority?
>
Homeopathy as Hahneman saw it at the end of the 18th century is now 
largely discredited.  His principle was that conditions could be treated 
by ultra-dilute preparations.  Compare this with the concept of 
vaccines, which were not discovered until long after his death, and you 
find a common philosophical thread whose exploration was well beyond 
what was available in the science of Hahneman's time.

Scientific discovery has many layers, and I find it amazing to go 
through my old volumes of "Scientific American" and visualize the 
thinking of the time.  On February 16, 1901 it reported on experiments 
being undertaken by the Italian Army on the possible military 
applications of automobiles.  On March 2 of the same year we see it 
reported that the French were very interested in the military 
applications of aviation.  We too easily forget the importance of these 
early efforts in our attempt to have the newest and "best" of everything.

Ec