The point I thought he was making is that speculations and ideas beget further speculations and ideas, some of which might be useful in expanding the basis on which we approach complex subjects. I'm suspicious of your clause "once it is realized that a position cannot be true" because it implies, as often appears in your claims, that you believe we are capable of knowing absolutely that some ideas are false.While that may be the case ( maybe some examples would help ), once it is realized that a position cannot be true, would it not be better to upgrade the position and carry on? After all, a true position can be equally or more "fecund" as a false one, the only difference is that starting with a sound premise is more likely to yield more accurate results, while starting with a false premise is generally a bad idea. So I really doubt that "often been the case" can be reasonably substantiated with respect to the fecundity of false positions.
For example, you state categorically that it is "impossible" that consciousness might survive, in some degree or fashion, the death of the body -- something none of us can be certain about. How much human experience do you have to reject in order to make that claim? A great deal, though you dismiss all of psychical research and parapsychology that supports the possibility of the survival of consciousness.
You also refer to "more accurate results" as a proof of the truth or falsity of premises and presuppositions, but as we see again and again in the history of science we shape our experiments to underwrite our hypotheses and theories. And this is the case also in philosophy, in which humans proceed from their assumptions about the nature of 'reality' that happen to be influential in their time and place.
Last edited by a moderator: