> On 25 Apr 2018, at 16:25, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. > > The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local > > extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can > > show old theories to be wrong. So [...] > > > So? If reason doesn’t work how can you have a “so”,
I did not say that reason did not work. Only that it does not work necessarily. > how can you use reason to reach a conclusion about reason, or a conclusion > about anything else? By using lucky enough some true premise, but I can only use them as hypothesis. A scientist who says “I know” is either talking colloquially, or is a con man. > > > > when applying a theory, we need some faith. > > A tentative scientific hypothesis has as much to do with faith as an > amorphous grey vague blog has to do with God. You like the word “faith” > because you know your opponents don’t like it, Procès d’intention. Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, and the truth we verify or prove in some theory. Of course, in “serious metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need already faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the everyday life we just forget this, and wisely so. Yet in metaphysics we have to be more careful and precise. > and you like the sound of the word “God” even though you don’t believe in the > concept the word symbolizes. And none of the ignorant Greeks who have been > dead for thousands of years and would flunk a forth grade science test can > change that fact. That explains why you are unable to think out of Aristotle theology, which you take for granted, like most pseudo-religious believers. The difference of conception of reality between Aristotle and Plato is the main fundamental metaphysical divide, but since theology has been taken back from science, most scientists are no more ware that they use Aristotle theology all the times, even when the facts accumulates against it, both with cognitive science and physics. Without backtracking to Plato, its normal to get lost in theological delusion. If you believe in primary matter, and in mechanism, you are inconsistent. You might also try to provide just one evidence in favour of primary matter. Bruno > > > John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
