Le 08-févr.-07, à 23:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :

>  John,
>   
>  I agree: being open-minded is more important than being "right".


OK, but being open-minded would be meaningless if the notion of being 
right was meaningless. Being open-minded means being open to the idea 
that someone else can be right (independently of the fact that in 
practice we can only judge personally someone to be interesting or not, 
but the notion of being right has to be implicit in the background. "To 
be right" entails we *could* be wrong.

Bruno






>
> Stathis.
>   
>>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
>> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:09:25 -0500
>>
>> Thanks, Fellow Uncertain (agnostic...). Let me quote to your question 
>> at the end the maxim from Mark's post:
>> "I think therefore I am right!" - Angelica  [Rugrat]
>> (whatever that came from. Of course we value more our (halfbaked?) 
>> opinion  than the wisdom of others.People die for it.
>> With the religious marvels: I look at them with awe, cannot state "it 
>> is impossible" because 'they' start out beyond reason and say what 
>> they please.
>> The sorry thing is, when a crowd takes it too seriously and kill, 
>> blow up, beat or burn live human beings in that 'belief'. Same, if 
>> for money.
>>  
>> John M
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Stathis Papaioannou
>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM
>>> Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
>>>
>>> I don't "know" a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only 
>>> trying to make the best guess I can given the evidence. Sometimes I 
>>> really have no idea, like choosing which way a tossed coin will come 
>>> up. Other times I do have evidence on which to base a belief, such 
>>> as the belief that the world was not in fact created in six 24-hr 
>>> days. It is certainly possible that I am wrong, and the evidence for 
>>> a very old universe has either been fabricated or grossly 
>>> misinterpreted, but I would bet on being right. Wouldn't you also, 
>>> if something you valued depended on the bet?
>>>  
>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>
>>>>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>>> Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
>>>> Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:28:25 -0500
>>>>
>>>> And you, Stathis, are very kind to assume that I "know' a right 
>>>> position from a wromng one. I may be in indecision before I 
>>>> denigrate...
>>>> On the contrary. if someone 'believes' the 6 day creation, I start 
>>>> speculating WHAT "days" they could have been metaphorically, 
>>>> starfting before the solar system led us to our present ways of 
>>>> scheduling. Etc. Etc. Accepting that whatever we 'believe' is our 
>>>> epistemic achievement, anything 'from yesterday' might have been 
>>>> 'right' (maybe except the old Greeks - ha ha). in their own rites.
>>>> Sometimes I start an argument about a "different" (questionable?) 
>>>> belief just to tickle out arguments which I did not consider 
>>>> earlier. But that is my dirty way.
>>>> I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider.
>>>>  
>>>> John M
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Stathis Papaioannou
>>>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM
>>>>> Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
>>>>>
>>>>> John,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple 
>>>>> inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at 
>>>>> least one of their beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of 
>>>>> other information. You're much kinder to alternative beliefs than 
>>>>> I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some beliefs are 
>>>>> wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you 
>>>>> say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six 
>>>>> days, but respect the right of others to believe that it was, what 
>>>>> you're really saying is that you respect the right of others to 
>>>>> have a false belief. I have no dispute with that, as long as it is 
>>>>> acknowledged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>>>
>>>>>>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stathiws,
>>>>>> no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the 
>>>>>> futility of arguing from one belief system (and stressing its 
>>>>>> solely expanded "truth") against a different "truth and evidence" 
>>>>>> carrying OTHER belief system.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept 
>>>>>> (alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking 
>>>>>> the professional).
>>>>>> IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our 
>>>>>> rather elastic ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est 
>>>>>> "onetrackminded"..(the 9th beatitude).
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> To your initial sentence: do you believe (in YOUR criteria of 
>>>>>> your beliefs) that TWO people may have absolutely identical 
>>>>>> beliefs? I am almost certain that as your immune system, DNA, 
>>>>>> fingerprint and the other zillion characteristics are not 
>>>>>> identical to those of other animals, the mental makeup is 
>>>>>> similarly unique.
>>>>>> We are not zombies of a mechanically computerized 
>>>>>> machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt 
>>>>>> (cogitant?) idem, non est idem.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> John M
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Stathis Papaioannou
>>>>>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a 
>>>>>>> different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, 
>>>>>>> "those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous 
>>>>>>> exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that 
>>>>>>> were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the Iliad and 
>>>>>>> Odyssey must be true", then they would be consistently applying 
>>>>>>> the standards they apply to the Bible. Of course, they don't: 
>>>>>>> other peoples' religious beliefs are subjected to rational 
>>>>>>> scrutiny and (rightly) found wanting, but their own beliefs are 
>>>>>>> special.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:17:57 -0500
>>>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stathis:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief 
>>>>>>>> system ONLY with a person
>>>>>>>> who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a 
>>>>>>>> devout catholic and an excellent
>>>>>>>>  biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in 
>>>>>>>> one mind, he answered:
>>>>>>>> "I never mix the two together". Tom is an excellent natural 
>>>>>>>> scientist and has brilliant
>>>>>>>> arguments in it, as long as it comes to his 'other' belief 
>>>>>>>> system - what he, quite
>>>>>>>> inderstandably - does not want to give up.
>>>>>>>> We all have 'second belief bases' in our multiple schizophrenia 
>>>>>>>> of intelligence.
>>>>>>>> Some have 'Platonia', some 'primitive matter view' - it is your 
>>>>>>>> profession.
>>>>>>>> Do you really think you can penetrate one by arguments from 
>>>>>>>> another?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John M
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> </HTML
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.30/674 - Release Date: 
>>>> 2/7/2007 3:33 PM
>>
>>  >>
>>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to