Bruno and list:
We are so sure about our infinite capabilities to
"understand" the entirety (wholeness) and follow all
existence (whatever you may call it) by our human mind
and logic...
I like to leave a 'slot' open (maybe WE are in the
restricted slot?) which is not accessible by our
idideationaleans.
Reality - whatever it may be identified by - is not a
human artifact. As this list agreed (at least I did)
it is better to talk about a '(1st person?) perception
of reality' i.e. of the part we can muster and in ways
we can handle. It may include the 'Subject' concepts.
Humbly yours
John Mikes
--- Bruno MaMarchalmamarchallulbc.be> wrote:
>
> Le 30-jajanv06, � 18:49, Brent Meeker a �critit
:
>
> > BrunMarchalal wrote:
> >> Le 2janvnv.-06, � 20:02, Brent
Meeke�crit��crit :
> >>> I largely agreeStathistathis. I note a subtle
> difference in
> >>> language between DannStathistathis. Danny
> refers to "believe in".
> >>> I don't think a scientist ever "believes in" a
> theory.
> >> All right, you use "believe in" (quote included!)
> for the "religious
> >> belief of the fundamentalist".
> >> Still I hope you agree that the scientist
> believes in its theory, if
> >> only to be able to acknowledge his theory is
> wrong when experiments
> >> refute it.
> >> Cf Belief = B Bpth (Bp -> p) NOT being a theorem!
> >>> That implies taking the theory as the
> foundation of all further
> >>> beliefs. In fact most scientists don't
> "believe" any theory, except
> >>> in the provisional sense of thinking them
> likely, or worth
> >>> entertaining, or suggestive.
> >> OK, but this is independent of the fact that,
> still, the scientist
> >> can "believe in" (in the scientist modest way of
> self-interrogation)
> >> in the *object* of his theory. Most naturalist
> "believe in" a
> >> physical universe, or a nature or whatever.
> >> We wouldn't discuss about a "theory of
> everything" if we were not
> >> believing in ... something.
> >>> Religious faith differs from ordinary belief and
> scientific
> >>> hypothesizing not only by the lack of evidence
> but even more in the
> >>> asserticertainityainity.
> >> I think everyone has religious faith.
> >
> > Do you believe that on faith ;-) Certainly
> everyone takes for granted
> > things on very slim evidence ("I heard it in the
> hall way"). But I
> > don't think they have "religious faith" which
> implies not just lack of
> > evidence, but a determination to believe in spite
> of contrary evidence
certainityainity that any contrary evidence must be
> wrong just because it
> > is contrary.
>
>
>
>
> To believe in something in spite of refutation is
> "bad faith".
> To believe in something in spite of contrary
> evidences ? It depends. I
> can imagine situations where I would find that a
> remarkable attitude,
> and I can imagine others where I would take it again
> as bad faith.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> Today, a scientist who pretends no doing
> philosophy or theology, is
> >> just a scientist taking for granted Aristotle
> theology. No problem in
> >> case he is aware of the fact, so that, as a
> scientist, he can still
> >> be open to the idea that Aristotle theology can
> be falsified, but if
> >> he is not aware of the fact, then he will not
> been able to make sense
> >> of the data---a little like ROmnes Omnes who
> concludes his analysis
> >> of QM that there is a point where we need to
> abandon faith in ...
> >> reason. Personally, I consider that abandoning
> faith in reason in
> >> front of difficulties, is just worse that
> abandoning faith in truth
> >> (whatever it is).
> >
> > That would be an unquestioning certitude that
> there is a reality
> > independent of all opinion?
>
>
> Well, that is the bet, or hope, of the non solipsist
> scientist. Popper
> said that faith in reason is faith in your own
> reason but above all
> faith in the reason of the others.
> And then Platonism is the faith in a reality
> independent of all
> opinion, indeed, like the faith in the fact that 17
> is prime
> independently of us.
>
> Bruno
http> hiridiaiulbia.ulb.amarchalarchal/
>
>
>
