Doug, you described your transition from what the philosophers call a
logical positivist (or maybe just positivist) approach, stemming back to
August Comte (in my opinion, a real jerk), to what is sometimes called a
structuralist approach (also attached by some to a French school of
philosophy), both of which are now being decried by the deconstructionists
and the post-structuralists (I'm having a hard time figuring out who is
who in this melange!).
What you are describing in your personal life trajectory is really at the
core of issues being dealt with very superficially in today's philosophies.
A book that looks at these issues from a historical and definitely
American point of view is by a contemporary historian:
John Patrick Diggins: The Promise of Pragmatism: Modernism and the
Crisis of Knowledge and Authority (paperback), 1994, Chicago, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL 60637.
If you are not acquainted with all this philosophical gobbledygook, I
think you would find that book very interesting in locating yourself in
the midst of that set of controversies.
In a more deeper vein, most of the key issues were addressed by the
American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce, in a very insightful and (I
think) relatively permanent way. Most of the people who deal with this
issues and who write about Peirce are surfers on the Sea of Knowledge.
Peirce, on the other hand, was a deep-sea diver. He occupies one chapter
and many references in Diggins' book, but even so some of what is there
misrepresents his work.
Peirce (who was a scientist and logicial, as well as a philosopher and
many other things) had a quite different view of "truth" than most
philosophers. In many respects, your views and his cohere; however his
view of science (as I interpret him) was that science is the least
fallible way of diminishing doubt; rather than the outstanding way of
reaching truth; a view with which I am in full accord (not that it matters
much).
-- JOHN WARFIELD Jwarfiel@gmu.edu