Dear Jochen, Thanks so much for the vivid descriptive letter. 
I could completely picture you drifting into slumber in the deep,
soft armchair at the foot of Margrit's bed.
I do hope that by now she has been allowed at least some sips of water or ice.
If not, and you think it wouldn't harm her, please intervene,
or ask Clemens to do so.
 
Please be assured you can disagree with me about anything
without evoking anger or deep dismay from me. 
Agreeing with me too easily is much more likely to disappoint me.
 
I have to admit that while writing yesterday's email,
and thinking about my proposed items of "knowledge" today,
I have been drawn much further in to your view of epistomology
than I would have guessed possible......but not all the way. 
 
'Facts are theory-laden' is a fundamental truth,
essential to evaluating assertions including those
that occur in the sciences. 
Yet I think you are applying this concept in such an extreme manner
as to hamper us in using  our brains to improve and enrich our lives.
 
You want to confine the concept "facts" to sensory impressions,
and give only those total credence. 
Yet sensory impressions alone,
without what you would consider theoretical interpretation,
are of very restricted usefulness. 
You may find this odd,
but I sometimes hear faint sounds
that I initially interpret as coming from outside my open window,
or from another room
where perhaps a message is being left on my telephone answering machine. 
After a short time, and more sounds,
I discover that the sounds are really emanating from my grumbling stomach.
Now you would say that the fact is no more than the sound itself,
that only this can be given full credence,
that the source of the sound is theory, and less reliable.
I agree; yet the sounds, by themselves, are practically useless. 
Uncovering the origin of the sounds
allows them to fit into a useful cognitive process....
I should pick up the phone message, or else drink some water.
 
We need to be aware, as best we can, how "theory",
language, acculturation, education profoundly influence our perceptions. 
Yet to make our way in the world, to enjoy a full life,
which includes an intellectual life and social relationships,
understanding of others, we must interpret, remember, compare,
integrate what we perceive around us. 
 
Admittedly, there are many sources of possible deception
as we interpret our impressions. 
So it's important that we be able to distinguish
the more reliable interpretations from the less likely. 
This is the part of cognition I find most essential. 
Without interpretation there is little worth knowing. 
The view across your lawn in Konnaock
derives its meaning and beauty
largely from your interpretation
of what the different shapes and colors represent:
shrubs, trees, vines, flowers, birds, deer. 
You group them into categories of beings,
you've learned the characteristics
they share with their fellow species-members. 
You remember how these beings behaved in the past,
interacted with you and your family members,
how they have changed with the seasons.
 
To live life in a cogent manner,
I am anxious to distinguish what's true from what's not. 
Of course this is laughable, impossible in an absolute sense. 
Yet propositions vary in their level of consistency, corroboration, reliability (having been tested).  Essential to developing a foundation of knowledge and understanding, is having ways of sorting assertions into the more or less likely to be true (accurate). I give my qualified credence (qualified because of the impact of theory) to the assertions supported by empirical evidence, while trying to remain ever conscious of the limitations of the evidence (including Goethe's dictum). 
 
So most important for me is which propositions to consider relatively true, even though there is no such thing as a culture-free, theory-free proposition.
 
Take the assertion that human activity is accelarating global warming to the detriment of future life on earth. Admittedly the global temperature records show variablity from location to location.  There are inaccuracies.  Many factors besides human activity contribute to changeing earth temperatures (e.g. sun cycle, volcanic eruptions sending material into the stratosphere).  Rising temperatures influence so many interacting factors (rainfall patterns, ice melts, ocean currents, wind patterns, etc.) that it is difficult to predict accurately what the effects on different countries will be. And political and economic factors influence the interpreters.  Despite all these complexities and sources of distortion and prejudice, I think we should try and figure out what's happening, and how to mitigate the effects if necessary.  Despite the overwhelming presence of theory in our perceptions of these matters, I think we can sort through the evidence and apply it to distinguish the likely-to-be-true from the less likely. 
 
Nothing would mock the victims of the Holocaust more than to say "It's history.  It's past.  We, the living, are not in a position to determine what happened, if anything, who was responsible.  What's past is past.  It's theory.  It's useless trying to apply evidence to understand what happened."  There is evidence.  Lots of it.  We can study it, sort it, appraise it, even though there are inaccuracies, contradictions, missing data, and self-interested interpreters. 
 
OK, I'll let you go. Much of our University computer system, including 1/3 of the email accounts (they don't tell us which ones), are expected to be down from 2 am Saturday through noon Sunday, so you will be able to enjoy a short respite from me.
 
Peace.     Marion