Critical Thinking, reductionism, epistemology RI megathread

[vanlose kid]

what struck me specifically about stefano's remark (and this is not an attack on his person) was that i can't imagine who he's speaking to on this thread.

Well I didn't want to name her because she can't reply, but I had in mind some quotes by Canadian_Watcher:

the theory of evolution is rife with bullshit, but it's the best thing we think we've got. Might as well not stop now.[...]We don't have the true answer to the question "where do we come from."

Those are from a post in the context of having children learn both young Earth creationism and evolution as 'two sides', equally valid. Now, no doubt there are holes in the story of our origins which we have to plug by guesswork as well as we can, but calling the theory of evolution 'rife with bullshit' is preposterous on its face. We, or at least those of us who take an interest, know better where we come from than anyone before us has.

we ought not to be so "positive' about what we think we know.

That was what I had in mind when I highlighted that bit in Jack's post about the limits of current knowledge, and when I replied to Sounder that empiricism will eventually (has already actually, viz. Lyall Watson or Rupert Sheldrake) make clear the limits of strict materialism. We should be positive about what we think we know, and keen to defend our theories in debate. We ought, though, also to be clear about what we don't know and about the things that still defy explanation. Consistent empiricism overturned strict materialism in physics 90 years ago and will inevitably do the same in biology at some stage.

As for definitional troubles... I'm afraid I can't help. By nature I would tend to mean matter, life and mind (and again, I think strict materialism in the last two areas is non-empirical and unscientific, as is the method of breaking nature up into constituent parts and studying those). Science doesn't have to be concerned with the tangible: Jungian analysis is a science, techniques of meditation are a science. As is, to answer your example of heartbreak, just being nice to someone who's going through a bad patch. You know that in previous instances when a friend was sad it made them and you feel better if you gave them a hug or squeezed their arm or made a joke, so be scientific and do that (I'm sort of joking but not completely).

i thought scientific method had precisely specified uses. now i know it's universally applicable everywhere and the solution to every kind of problem in existence. maybe it can help me with the problem of understanding how that can possibly be.

If you're trying to bring in an idea of non-overlapping_magisteria then go for it, I won't argue with that. But in the magisterium of knowing where we come from, how old the Earth is and that kind of thing science has the final word, full stop.

I happened to last week eventually get my hands on a text I'd been looking for for ages, Holism and Evolution by Jan Smuts, a dense little tome on philosophy and science he cranked out in between stints as Prime Minister of South Africa. A bit sad that this was written in 1926:

[In the 19th century] the materialists contended [...] that life and mind were born from matter. From this they proceeded (quite illegitimately) to infer the primacy and self-sufficiency of matter in the order of the universe, and to reduce life and mind to a subsidiary and subordinate position as mere epiphenomena, as appearances on the surface of the one reality, matter. To use the Platonic figure, to them matter was the lyre, and the soul was the music of that lyre; the lyre was the substantive and abiding reality, and the music a mere passing product. And thus the priority and dominance of matter made of life and the soul merely transient and embarrassed phantoms of the stage of existence. This materialism was most hotly resented and contested by those who held to the spiritual values and realities. They denied not only the primacy of matter but also that life or mind sprang from it and were dependent on it in any real sense. In fact they denied the principle of Evolution as undermining all the spiritual and moral values of life. Both sides, materialists and spiritualists alike, were under the influence of the hard physical concepts of cause and effect which played such a great part in the science of the nineteenth century. There could be nothing more in the effect than there was already in the cause; and if matter caused the soul, there could be nothing more in the soul than there already was in matter. [...] The abstract validity of this argument was never questioned and was thoroughly believed in by both sides. Hence those who affirmed the theory of Evolution tended to be materialists, and those who were spiritualists were logically forced to deny Evolution.[...] To-day thoughtful men and women are sincere and convinced Evolutionists, without troubling themselves over the dead and forgotten issue of materialism versus spiritualism.

you'll probably consider this as yet another meaningless semantic point but again: if i read you rightly, transcendental meditation, fengshui, art history, physics, biology, housekeeping, alchemy, tarot reading, astrology are all sciences, practically anything and the kitchen sink. which makes me wonder why, in your own idiosyncratic, or is it holistic, definition of science, creationism is excluded? because you don't like it? "no, because creationism is not a science" you say. well how do you make that distinction? where do you draw the line? and do you really think that i'm arguing against the definition of science so pliable as to admit anything you like into it?

what would you consider to be the experimental method of fengshui? should it be on the curriculum? what about astrology?

*

[stefano]

you'll probably consider this as yet another meaningless semantic point but again: if i read you rightly, transcendental meditation, fengshui, art history, physics, biology, housekeeping, alchemy, tarot reading, astrology are all sciences,

I don't know about feng shui, since the effects of the thing, as far as my limited knowledge has it, aren't necessarily observable. Art history I'd throw out as well, as it's a narrative with nothing to say about the future. But as to the others, yes. All of them involve observation, theories extrapolated from the data points obtained through experiment, new experiment to test the theory, a refinement of the original theory, and so on. When it comes to praxis, the way of doing things, they involve trial and error, the implementation of methods that have yielded results in the past, and the gradual refinement of methods.

which makes me wonder why, in your own idiosyncratic, or is it holistic, definition of science, creationism is excluded? because you don't like it? "no, because creationism is not a science" you say. well how do you make that distinction? where do you draw the line?

Creationism is the belief that a myth is the actual explanation for how the world came to be. Taking as an example of creationism the belief in the Genesis myth, it is the theory that a specific tribal deity created the Earth in six specific steps on six successive days. It's not a valid scientific theory because it is shown to be false under several kinds of testing, most notably by the combined lifetime work of hundreds or thousands of palaeontologists. That's why it's not a science.

do you really think that i'm arguing against the definition of science so pliable as to admit anything you like into it?

I have no idea what you're arguing against, to be honest. If I may ask one question in response to all of yours, what is your argument? I replied to your post because you said you didn't know who, in this thread, has been anti-science, and to take the floor in my capacity as the caricature 'proponent of scientism' you seem to think I am. And my definition of science doesn't admit 'anything I like', see above.

what would you consider to be the experimental method of fengshui? should it be on the curriculum?

As I said I'm not really decided on the scientific credentials of feng shui, but it's not science if you can't check that it works or predicts. Here is the curriculum of the The Alan Stirling International Feng Shui School of Excellence: long on inverse gua and hostile lines, short on 'how to tell if this works'. Probably not science.

what about astrology?

I recently read a book called Cosmos and psyche by Richard Tarnas which takes an empirical and level-headed approach to astrology. Very interesting. I have my doubts about some of it but I can't decide to my satisfaction that astrology isn't science without spending a hell of a lot of time on the subject. Not including horoscopes, of course; if you'd like an explanation as to why horoscopes aren't scientific let me know. At any rate Michel Gauquelin's statistical work on the 'Mars effect' is a scientifically valid proof of at least the fundamental principles of astrology.

[Hammer of Los]

Mollycoddling is counterproductive, and acceptance of ideas without testing them creates a weak, dilutionary climate, where each notion, no matter how absurd, is deserving of, at the very least, respectful and thoughtful consideration. This is exactly the greatest hope of those who would poison discourse with diversion.

That seems rather like the method of Charles' Fort; to give all notions equal consideration.

In fact, I wonder how you determine whether a notion is absurd without giving it some sort of consideration? You must consider first whether the idea is absurd on the face of it. Ideally, if one seriously wants the truth, it should be consideration of the most respectful and thoughtful kind.

Or perhaps you can have faith in your gut feelings.

But you cannot rationally ascertain the absurdity or otherwise of any proposition without stopping to consider it.

And no, I don't want to poison discourse with diversion.

I do believe that seemingly absurd, or at least counter intuitive, propositions may nonetheless prove true, or at least credible. Never underestimate human ignorance. In a hundred, a thousand, one hundred thousand years (if the race persists), think with what astonishment shall be viewed the follies of our age.

[barracuda]

In fact, I wonder how you determine whether a notion is absurd without giving it some sort of consideration? You must consider first whether the idea is absurd on the face of it. Ideally, if one seriously wants the truth, it should be consideration of the most respectful and thoughtful kind.

Or perhaps you can have faith in your gut feelings.

As I've said, I'm not beyond giving any idea some sort of consideration:

- Slavery is a fine economic system.

Fuck that.

- The army is not a job, it's an adventure.

Screw you.

- Clitoral circumcision might be the best way for some cultures to deal with aspects of contemporary life.

Cut your own dick off first.

- Biblical creationism should be taught as a matter of course to all school children on equal footing with science.

Keep your propaganda off my kid.

- The terrorists hate us for our freedoms.

Stick it up your ass.

I'm sure you can think of some examples yourself. I don't have to even rely on my gut instinct to dismiss these ideas after the briefest sort of consideration - they speak to me through a simple gag reflex. I'm certainly not going to waste my thoughfulness and respect on them. I mean, there's only so much thoughfulness and respect available to me in life, and I'd much rather direct mine towards areas which my conscience and intellect tells me are more deserving. Everybody's got choices to make.

[vanlose kid]

you'll probably consider this as yet another meaningless semantic point but again: if i read you rightly, transcendental meditation, fengshui, art history, physics, biology, housekeeping, alchemy, tarot reading, astrology are all sciences,

I don't know about feng shui, since the effects of the thing, as far as my limited knowledge has it, aren't necessarily observable. Art history I'd throw out as well, as it's a narrative with nothing to say about the future. But as to the others, yes. All of them involve observation, theories extrapolated from the data points obtained through experiment, new experiment to test the theory, a refinement of the original theory, and so on. When it comes to praxis, the way of doing things, they involve trial and error, the implementation of methods that have yielded results in the past, and the gradual refinement of methods.

which makes me wonder why, in your own idiosyncratic, or is it holistic, definition of science, creationism is excluded? because you don't like it? "no, because creationism is not a science" you say. well how do you make that distinction? where do you draw the line?

Creationism is the belief that a myth is the actual explanation for how the world came to be. Taking as an example of creationism the belief in the Genesis myth, it is the theory that a specific tribal deity created the Earth in six specific steps on six successive days. It's not a valid scientific theory because it is shown to be false under several kinds of testing, most notably by the combined lifetime work of hundreds or thousands of palaeontologists. That's why it's not a science.

do you really think that i'm arguing against the definition of science so pliable as to admit anything you like into it?

I have no idea what you're arguing against, to be honest. If I may ask one question in response to all of yours, what is your argument? I replied to your post because you said you didn't know who, in this thread, has been anti-science, and to take the floor in my capacity as the caricature 'proponent of scientism' you seem to think I am. And my definition of science doesn't admit 'anything I like', see above.

what would you consider to be the experimental method of fengshui? should it be on the curriculum?

As I said I'm not really decided on the scientific credentials of feng shui, but it's not science if you can't check that it works or predicts. Here is the curriculum of the The Alan Stirling International Feng Shui School of Excellence: long on inverse gua and hostile lines, short on 'how to tell if this works'. Probably not science.

what about astrology?

I recently read a book called Cosmos and psyche by Richard Tarnas which takes an empirical and level-headed approach to astrology. Very interesting. I have my doubts about some of it but I can't decide to my satisfaction that astrology isn't science without spending a hell of a lot of time on the subject. Not including horoscopes, of course; if you'd like an explanation as to why horoscopes aren't scientific let me know. At any rate Michel Gauquelin's statistical work on the 'Mars effect' is a scientifically valid proof of at least the fundamental principles of astrology.

astrology is a science? so, hypothetically, if someone opposed astrology being taught in schools that person would be anti-science?

*

[stefano]

astrology is a science? so, hypothetically, if someone opposed astrology being taught in schools that person would be anti-science?

Erm... well sort of. Not in the same way as someone who opposes the teaching of evolution or heliocentrism though, because astrology isn't proven in the same way as those two scientific theories. I don't consider astrology a proven and reliable science even to my own satisfaction. It may well not be (unlike, again, evolution). So I wouldn't personally bug if people complained about astrology being taught in schools. But, hypothetically, if astrology had been proven in the same way, if sociological and psychological observations were consistently found to agree with the mainstream theory of astrology (even though refinements were constantly being appended to the theory as many hundreds of thinkers across the world came up with them), and a version of the astrological theory were being taught in schools, and then someone opposed its teaching on the grounds that there's this book that says 'there shall not be found among you any one [...] that useth divination, or an observer of times', then yeah such a person would be anti-science.

Can I ask you again what your take on all of this is? And is it just me or are you being tetchy for some reason?

[vanlose kid]

astrology is a science? so, hypothetically, if someone opposed astrology being taught in schools that person would be anti-science?

Erm... well sort of. Not in the same way as someone who opposes the teaching of evolution or heliocentrism though, because astrology isn't proven in the same way as those two scientific theories. I don't consider astrology a proven and reliable science even to my own satisfaction. It may well not be (unlike, again, evolution). So I wouldn't personally bug if people complained about astrology being taught in schools. But, hypothetically, if astrology had been proven in the same way, if sociological and psychological observations were consistently found to agree with the mainstream theory of astrology (even though refinements were constantly being appended to the theory as many hundreds of thinkers across the world came up with them), and a version of the astrological theory were being taught in schools, and then someone opposed its teaching on the grounds that there's this book that says 'there shall not be found among you any one [...] that useth divination, or an observer of times', then yeah such a person would be anti-science.

Can I ask you again what your take on all of this is? And is it just me or are you being tetchy for some reason?

to be honest, i haven't been tetchy at any point. like i said earlier, i was trying to make sense of what you and Jack were saying. at some point i thought you might be saying the same thing. now it seems you're saying something different which to be honest i still can't quite make sense of. re science, you lost me with astrology and meditation. in some way your views make even less sense to me. my take on what is science and what isn't is a bit more narrow i guess. i mean, i don't even consider freudian psychology a science. which is strange considering you're the one championing the view that science will some day give us the answer to the universe and everything.

but that's ok. your beliefs are your beliefs. go in peace.

*

[Hammer of Los]

All this talk of existing things and non-existing things is very confusing.

It seems to me that "existence" is not a predicate, that is, it is not a quality that a thing may or may not possess, like say being the colour black, ie the property of blackness. The concept of unicorn has the same properties, whether or not the thing may be said to really exist, which I guess means that you might actually bump into one some day. It has the properties of being horselike, having a horn, magical healing qualities, the moral property of purity or goodness and so on; a bundle of predicates or properties whereby we recognise the concept "unicorn."

The world being an inventory of the things in it is Jack's suggestion.. hmm.

I could tell you the way I think of the world; a mass of sense impressions, a swirl of ideas, of memories, of thoughts. Thought differentiates the sense impressions, divides light from dark, rough from smooth, quiet from loud. A plurality is born. Out of nothing comes the one, which splits into two, and by further process(es) of like subdivision the world comes into being, by which of course I mean the ten million things under heaven. That is what the world is to me. Oh, one of the ideas in the world, is of "The Material World" independent of my idea of it, or indeed of anyone and everyone's idea(s) of it. This is a funny thing, because technically speaking, I cannot refer to it at all. I cannot at all refer to the world that exists(?!) beyond my concept of it. The act of conception is what brings the world into being. This other world, the world that exists beyond our concepts, is a metaphysical construct, an invention. It's like those elephants we thought planet earth rested on until we realised it didnt rest on anything and just floated in space.

I am just making the point that we can speak only of the world as mediated by mind, by our concept(s) of it.

That other world, the independently real, physical, material, existing world. We cannot even speak of it. All I can speak of is the world concept, the world as conceived.

It's late, I'm rambling, I have little doubt that I am being as clear as mud. So sorry bout that.

I think of Self and World, and Subject and Object, and Inner and Outer, as being properties of a single movement. The division which separates also creates, it creates self and world in the first instance, and everything else, every real existing thing, by a process of consequent differentiation.

To ignore the psychological (Psychical? Spiritual? Soteriological?) aspect(s) of the world is to suffer from a self imposed blindness, a narrowing of the range of perspective of one's illuminating vision. The materialists live in a hell of their own making. To see clearly is to understand, is to be incapable of doubting, as Wittgenstein might have put it.

I always liked Wittgenstein and Hume a great deal. I even have some Kierkegaard on my shelf. You are quite the scholar, VK.

Oh, oh! And someone mentioned Teilhard De Chardin, I have some of him too. I agree there is much to commend in him. I must reread "The Phenomenon of Man" one day.

ps No hard feelings from me towards AD. I believe I do understand his sentiments, which have some justification fer sure. It's just that his attitude sometimes lacks nuance, on account of his own quite clearly demonstrated hobby horse(s). But hell, we all got 'em. Just remember, not all harmless pseudo mystics are really anti semitic neo nazi right wing neo pagan racist nationalists, drugged and brainwashed with LSD, ancient religions (Jedi, anyone? Or First Earth Battallion? Where do I sign up?) and encouraged by the counterculture, my favourite hippy folk rock, and the Esalen institute to drop out and be politically ineffective. And support sinister right wing memes. In fact, that's probably just me.

You see, I have nothing against humour. It's insults I don't like.

[American Dream]

ps No hard feelings from me towards AD. I believe I do understand his sentiments, which have some justification fer sure. It's just that his attitude sometimes lacks nuance, on account of his own quite clearly demonstrated hobby horse(s). But hell, we all got 'em. Just remember, not all harmless pseudo mystics are really anti semitic neo nazi right wing neo pagan racist nationalists, drugged and brainwashed with LSD, ancient religions (Jedi, anyone? Or First Earth Battallion? Where do I sign up?) and encouraged by the counterculture, my favourite hippy folk rock, and the Esalen institute to drop out and be politically ineffective. In fact, it's probably just me.

You see, I have nothing against humour. It's insults I don't like.

I think there has been a great deal of filtering of my opinions through various people's subjectivities, so I should clarify.

I am by no means against spirituality. I do think personally that if one's "faith" leads one to overlook- or endorse- elders of zion type anti-Semitism, Xtian creationism, dangerous cults, or dubious claims about archons/anunnaki, then this should be a kind of wake up call.

I'm not saying "spiritual people are stupid" or anything like that, though I would want to know why it is that "faith" can bring some of us to these sorts of places. Neither am I saying that people who claim spiritual principle here are all this, that, or the other,

Ultimately, it takes one to know one- and my concerns are borne of personal experience that these things can sometimes lead one in questionable directions. And question, I will- hopefully with not too heavy of a hand.

My apologies if I have (inadvertantly) stepped on any toes- not my intention. My personal "faith" is that we have a lot of real intelligence that will be, must be expressed and that it can and will do great things.

This is my intent.




.

[vanlose kid]

All this talk of existing things and non-existing things is very confusing.

It seems to me that "existence" is not a predicate, that is, it is not a quality that a thing may or may not possess, like say being the colour black, ie the property of blackness. The concept of unicorn has the same properties, whether or not the thing may be said to really exist, which I guess means that you might actually bump into one some day. It has the properties of being horselike, having a horn, magical healing qualities, the moral property of purity or goodness and so on; a bundle of predicates or properties whereby we recognise the concept "unicorn."

The world being an inventory of the things in it is Jack's suggestion.. hmm.

I could tell you the way I think of the world; a mass of sense impressions, a swirl of ideas, of memories, of thoughts. Thought differentiates the sense impressions, divides light from dark, rough from smooth, quiet from loud. A plurality is born. Out of nothing comes the one, which splits into two, and by further process(es) of like subdivision the world comes into being, by which of course I mean the ten million things under heaven. That is what the world is to me. Oh, one of the ideas in the world, is of "The Material World" independent of my idea of it, or indeed of anyone and everyone's idea(s) of it. This is a funny thing, because technically speaking, I cannot refer to it at all. I cannot at all refer to the world that exists(?!) beyond my concept of it. The act of conception is what brings the world into being. This other world, the world that exists beyond our concepts, is a metaphysical construct, an invention. It's like those elephants we thought planet earth rested on until we realised it didnt rest on anything and just floated in space.

I am just making the point that we can speak only of the world as mediated by mind, by our concept(s) of it.

That other world, the independently real, physical, material, existing world. We cannot even speak of it. All I can speak of is the world concept, the world as conceived.

It's late, I'm rambling, I have little doubt that I am being as clear as mud. So sorry bout that.

I think of Self and World, and Subject and Object, and Inner and Outer, as being properties of a single movement. The division which separates also creates, it creates self and world in the first instance, and everything else, every real existing thing, by a process of consequent differentiation.

To ignore the psychological (Psychical? Spiritual? Soteriological?) aspect(s) of the world is to suffer from a self imposed blindness, a narrowing of the range of perspective of one's illuminating vision. The materialists live in a hell of their own making. To see clearly is to understand, is to be incapable of doubting, as Wittgenstein might have put it.

I always liked Wittgenstein and Hume a great deal. I even have some Kierkegaard on my shelf. You are quite the scholar, VK.

Oh, oh! And someone mentioned Teilhard De Chardin, I have some of him too. I agree there is much to commend in him. I must reread "The Phenomenon of Man" one day.

ps No hard feelings from me towards AD. I believe I do understand his sentiments, which have some justification fer sure. It's just that his attitude sometimes lacks nuance, on account of his own quite clearly demonstrated hobby horse(s). But hell, we all got 'em. Just remember, not all harmless pseudo mystics are really anti semitic neo nazi right wing neo pagan racist nationalists, drugged and brainwashed with LSD, ancient religions (Jedi, anyone? Or First Earth Battallion? Where do I sign up?) and encouraged by the counterculture, my favourite hippy folk rock, and the Esalen institute to drop out and be politically ineffective. In fact, it's probably just me.

You see, I have nothing against humour. It's insults I don't like.

HLos, that was partways one of the points i was trying to get across actually. you might have done a better job of it. we'll see.

the problem, as you say, is that we "accept" the existence of the world (and you're right, it's not a predicate) which is to say we act in the way we do unquestioningly, without grounds or proof. and one of the ways in which we act is in our practice of science. what people forget is that science cannot even prove the existence of the world. the existence of the world functions as a basic unquestioned assumption. it's not even part of any theory. anyone who says science has proven that the world exists still hasn't yet understood what the words "science", "proof", "world", "exists", means, or how these words are used. should such a person then go on to say that science has proven that God does or does not exist (strict materialism or ID) then he's not making a scientific judgment but a metaphysical claim. and metaphysics is not science. it doesn't even resemble a science. to say that it is is nonsense. that's quite a problem, when the science minded make metaphysical claims that they imagine are backed up by facts. that's compounded nonsense.

"God does not exist" is not a scientific proposition, it's an expression of faith.

*

[vanlose kid]

here are some reminders written by Wittgenstein re the above that might help make matters more clear to someone:

159. As children we learn facts; e.g., that every human being has a brain, and we take them on trust. I believe that there is an island, Australia, of such-and-such a shape, and so on and so on; I believe that I had great-grandparents, that the people who gave themselves out as my parents really were my parents, etc. This belief may never have been expressed; even the thought that it was so, never thought.

160. The child learns by believing the adult. Doubt comes after belief.

161. I learned an enormous amount and accepted it on human authority, and then I found some things confirmed or disconfirmed by my own experience.

162. In general I take as true what is found in text-books, of geography for example. Why? I say: All these facts have been confirmed a hundred times over. But how do I know that? What is my evidence for it? I have a world-picture. Is it true or false? Above all it is the substratum of all my enquiring and asserting. The propositions describing it are not all equally subject to testing.

163. Does anyone ever test whether this table remains in existence when no one is paying attention to it?

We check the story of Napoleon, but not whether all the reports about him are based on sense-deception, forgery and the like. For whenever we test anything, we are already presupposing something that is not tested. Now am I to say that the experiment which perhaps I make in order to test the truth of a proposition presupposes the truth of the proposition that the apparatus I believe I see is really there (and the like)?

164. Doesn't testing come to an end?

165. One child might say to another: "I know that the earth is already hundred of years old" and that would mean: I have learnt it.

166. The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing.

167. It is clear that our empirical propositions do not all have the same status, since one can lay down such a proposition and turn it from an empirical proposition into a norm of description.

Think of chemical investigations. Lavoisier makes experiments with substances in his laboratory and now he concludes that this and that takes place when there is burning. He does not say that it might happen otherwise another time. He has got hold of a definite world-picture - not of course one that he invented: he learned it as a child. I say world-picture and not hypothesis, because it is the matter-of-course foundation for his research and as such also goes unmentioned.

168. But now, what part is played by the presupposition that a substance A always reacts to a substance B in the same way, given the same circumstances? Or is that part of the definition of a substance?

169. One might think that there were propositions declaring that chemistry is possible. And these would be propositions of a natural science. For what should they be supported by, if not by experience?

170. I believe what people transmit to me in a certain manner. In this way I believe geographical, chemical, historical facts etc. That is how I learn the sciences. Of course learning is based on believing.

If you have learnt that Mont Blanc is 4000 metres high, if you have looked it up on the map, you say you know it.

And can it now be said: we accord credence in this way because it has proved to pay?

171. A principle ground for Moore to assume that he never was on the moon is that no one ever was on the moon or could come there; and this we believe on grounds of what we learn. [this was written in 1951.]

172. Perhaps someone says "There must be some basic principle on which we accord credence", but what can such a principle accomplish? Is it more than a natural law of 'taking for true'?

173. Is it maybe in my power what I believe? or what I unshakeably believe?

I believe that there is a chair over there. Can't I be wrong? But, can I believe that I am wrong? Or can I so much as bring it under consideration? - And mightn't I also hold fast to my belief whatever I learned later on?! But is my belief then grounded?

174. I act with complete certainty. But this certainty is my own.

175. "I know it" I say to someone else; and here there is a justification. But there is none for my belief.

176. Instead of "I know it" one may say in some cases "That's how it is - rely upon it." In some cases, however "I learned it years and years ago"; and sometimes: "I am sure it is so."

177. What I know, I believe.

178. The wrong use made by Moore of the proposition "I know..." lies in his regarding it as an utterance as little subject to doubt as "I am in pain". And since from "I know it is so" there follows "It is so", then the latter can't be doubted either.

179. It would be correct to say: "I believe..." has subjective truth; but "I know..." not.

180. Or again "I believe..." is an 'expression', but not "I know...".

181. Suppose Moore had said "I swear..." instead of "I know...".

182. The more primitive idea is that the earth never had a beginning. No child has reason to ask himself how long the earth has existed, because all change takes place on it. If what is called the earth really came into existence at some time - which is hard enough to picture - then one naturally assumes the beginning as having been an inconceivably long time ago.

183. "It is certain that after the battle of Austerlitz Napoleon... Well, in that case it's surely also certain that the earth existed then."

184. "It is certain that we didn't arrive on this planet from another one a hundred years ago." Well, it's as certain as such things are.

185. It would strike me as ridiculous to want to doubt the existence of Napoleon; but if someone doubted the existence of the earth 150 years ago, perhaps I should be more willing to listen, for now he is doubting our whole system of evidence. It does not strike me as if this system were more certain than a certainty within it.

186. "I might suppose that Napoleon never existed and is a fable, but not that the earth did not exist 150 years ago."

187. "Do you know that the earth existed then?" - "Of course I know that. I have it from someone who certainly knows all about it."

188. It strikes me as if someone who doubts the existence of the earth at that time is impugning the nature of all historical evidence. And I cannot say of this latter that it is definitely correct.

189. At some point one has to pass from explanation to mere description.

190. What we call historical evidence points to the existence of the earth a long time before my birth; - the opposite hypothesis has nothing on its side.

191. Well, if everything speaks for an hypothesis and nothing against it - is it then certainly true? One may designate it as such. - But does it certainly agree with reality, with the facts? - With this question you are already going round in a circle.

192. To be sure there is justification; but justification comes to an end.

...

291. We know that the earth is round. We have definitively ascertained that it is round.
We shall stick to this opinion, unless our whole way of seeing nature changes. "How do you know that?" - I believe it.

http://budni.by.ru/oncertainty.html

*

[Hammer of Los]

In fact, I wonder how you determine whether a notion is absurd without giving it some sort of consideration? You must consider first whether the idea is absurd on the face of it. Ideally, if one seriously wants the truth, it should be consideration of the most respectful and thoughtful kind.

Or perhaps you can have faith in your gut feelings.

As I've said, I'm not beyond giving any idea some sort of consideration:

- Slavery is a fine economic system.

Fuck that.

- The army is not a job, it's an adventure.

Screw you.

- Clitoral circumcision might be the best way for some cultures to deal with aspects of contemporary life.

Cut your own dick off first.

- Biblical creationism should be taught as a matter of course to all school children on equal footing with science.

Keep your propaganda off my kid.

- The terrorists hate us for our freedoms.

Stick it up your ass.

I'm sure you can think of some examples yourself. I don't have to even rely on my gut instinct to dismiss these ideas after the briefest sort of consideration - they speak to me through a simple gag reflex. I'm certainly not going to waste my thoughfulness and respect on them. I mean, there's only so much thoughfulness and respect available to me in life, and I'd much rather direct mine towards areas which my conscience and intellect tells me are more deserving. Everybody's got choices to make.

The examples you choose are odd. None of them look like real propositions to me, that is, things which may be said to be true or false. "Slavery is a fine economic system," is a value judgement, and thus is properly viewed as a personal statement about how the speaker feels about the subject at hand. "The Army is not a job, its an adventure." That's not a proposition either. It is a slogan. It is vacuous, again simply an attempt to connect positive connoting words/signs/symbols with a particular job choice. It is simply masquerading as a real proposition. Your other examples are also value judgements except "Terrorists hate us for our freedoms." To which I would ask which terrorists, who do you mean by "us" and what freedoms? That one may actually be true if restated as "Some terrorists believe we allow ourselves too much licence or "freedom" in the west in terms of behaviour and dress codes and freedom of expression," or some such. But yes, if you restate the questions in meaningful ways, avoiding ambiguity, vacuity, sloganeering, appealing to emotions or expressing personal value judgements, then if they are serious questions they ought to be examined seriously.

[Hammer of Los]

HLos, that was partways one of the points i was trying to get across actually.

Yes, I really enjoyed your last piece in response to Jack. The whole set theory thing you were going into was fascinating. I had no idea where it was leading but it had me mesmerised. You can really do your head in with that set theory stuff, you know, the set of sets that are not themselves sets of the set of sets which contains all possible sets, that sort of stuff. It was the only worthwhile stuff Russell ever did and it was all that wierdo A N Whitehead's ideas really. Oh well, Russell was still notable for his peace work - except that it was critically undermined. VK you are my little philosophy buddy.

ps No hard feelings from me towards AD. I believe I do understand his sentiments, which have some justification fer sure. It's just that his attitude sometimes lacks nuance, on account of his own quite clearly demonstrated hobby horse(s). But hell, we all got 'em. Just remember, not all harmless pseudo mystics are really anti semitic neo nazi right wing neo pagan racist nationalists, drugged and brainwashed with LSD, ancient religions (Jedi, anyone? Or First Earth Battallion? Where do I sign up?) and encouraged by the counterculture, my favourite hippy folk rock, and the Esalen institute to drop out and be politically ineffective. In fact, it's probably just me.

You see, I have nothing against humour. It's insults I don't like.

I think there has been a great deal of filtering of my opinions through various people's subjectivities, so I should clarify.

I am by no means against spirituality. I do think personally that if one's "faith" leads one to overlook- or endorse- elders of zion type anti-Semitism, Xtian creationism, dangerous cults, or dubious claims about archons/anunnaki, then this should be a kind of wake up call.

I'm not saying "spiritual people are stupid" or anything like that, though I would want to know why it is that "faith" can bring some of us to these sorts of places. Neither am I saying that people who claim spiritual principle here are all this, that, or the other,

Ultimately, it takes one to know one- and my concerns are borne of personal experience that these things can sometimes lead one in questionable directions. And question, I will- hopefully with not too heavy of a hand.

My apologies if I have (inadvertantly) stepped on any toes- not my intention. My personal "faith" is that we have a lot of real intelligence that will be, must be expressed and that it can and will do great things.

This is my intent.

You know American Dream, I know all the above already, and totally agree with you. Isn't it marvellous to agree! I also think you are a valuable and substantive contributor here with your own ideas. And this was a very interesting question, if I understand you aright;

I would want to know why it is that "faith" can bring some of us to these sorts of places.

Do you mean this forum here? How my "faith"* led me here? I'll have to try and answer that some time. It will tell you a lot about me if I do, I would guess, the intellectual and spiritual journey of my lifetime. I will tell you that I completely 100% agree with this;

My personal "faith" is that we have a lot of real intelligence that will be, must be expressed and that it can and will do great things.

* I avoid that word. I don't like it. I consider "religion" to be a way of looking. Seeking sounds too pretentious, not that that usually stops me. And its not necessarily predicated on something being found. It is just a process of bringing about clarity, or rather sweeping away misconception and confusion. You remove to reveal.

[vanlose kid]

here's a passage by M. O'C. Drury on scientists stepping into nonsense:

In the previous century that great biologist T. H. Huxley, lecturing to an audience, told them: "The thoughts to which I am giving utterance, and your thoughts regarding them, are the expression of molecular changes in that matter of life which is the source of our other vital phenomena." Is that clear to you? I must say that I can attach no clear meaning to it. Sherrington recalls that as a student in Germany the Professor put one of the Betz cells from the cerebral cortex under the microscope, and labelled it "the organ of thought". A few days later a tumour of the brain was being demonstrated in the pathology department and one of the students asked: "And are these cells also engaged in thinking, Herr Professor?" Now this I think was a really witty remark. For it made a piece of concealed nonsense obvious nonsense.

M. O'C. Drury, The Danger of Words, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973, pp. 59-60.

edit: typos.

*

[barracuda]

The examples you choose are odd. None of them look like real propositions to me, that is, things which may be said to be true or false. "Slavery is a fine economic system," is a value judgement, and thus is properly viewed as a personal statement about how the speaker feels about the subject at hand. "The Army is not a job, its an adventure." That's not a proposition either. It is a slogan. It is vacuous, again simply an attempt to connect positive connoting words/signs/symbols with a particular job choice. It is simply masquerading as a real proposition. Your other examples are also value judgements except "Terrorists hate us for our freedoms." To which I would ask which terrorists, who do you mean by "us" and what freedoms? That one may actually be true if restated as "Some terrorists believe we allow ourselves too much licence or "freedom" in the west in terms of behaviour and dress codes and freedom of expression," or some such. But yes, if you restate the questions in meaningful ways, avoiding ambiguity, vacuity, sloganeering, appealing to emotions or expressing personal value judgements, then if they are serious questions they ought to be examined seriously.

But we weren't discussing the evaluation of well-formed propositions within the structure of symbolic logic. We were discussing notions:

In fact, I wonder how you determine whether a notion is absurd without giving it some sort of consideration?

Notions meaning beliefs as encountered within the real world. But giving the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that gut feelings or gag reflexes are simply the re-formation within the recipient's understanding of a notion into more strictly propositional forms coinciding nearly instantaneously with a rejection of the proposition based upon a fast and dirty evaluation of that proposition as incomplete, poorly formed, or tautological within the moral scheme held by the recipient. Every decision is a moral decision. Every statement of belief holds within it a value judgement. Decisions formed outside of a value judgement or moral schema are merely instinctive and can only rise to the level, at best, of cunning.