> I remember in one of our earlier conversations, I proposed that "reason" should be turned into two terms: "cause" and "plan-given-knowledge". You weren't impressed.

Hmmmm....maybe I misunderstood....want to run it by me again?

> In general I do believe that separating out different senses is important for reasoning because logic cannot allow for one meaning in one clause and another in a different clause of the same argument. This fallacy is omnipresent in anything but the equations of hard science IMO

Exactly my point (I think).....and worse: based on my observations, many people seem to think that Science is The answer to all our problems (presumably because of its genuinely amazing track record of success, but only in the limited domain within which it practices), but don't realize that science doesn't really take into consideration the complex layers of metaphysical reality that do indeed exist, whether or not we have a means of measuring them. As long as we continue to ignore metaphysics, it will continue to fuck up our shit, and we will continue to blame it on literal fantasies.

> Yes, of course I identify with whorfism. I would go further than the strong version. Non linguistic Neural modules programmed by our society generate assertions and assent to them at very advanced points in the chain of reasoning. Foundationalism as a realistic model for human reason is quite laughable really.

Ok, that makes two of us. I think we need better marketing for this potentially transformational movement.