*laughing* I love you, Molly. However, I see we apparently DO need to toss that Canard au Melange back in the oven. Very well.
As an empiricist, Occam's Razor tends to reign supreme. For the last 3500 years of recorded scientific observation, the sun has followed the same pattern, and as our understanding of celestial bodies has grown, we have gained a greater knowledge of why. This is an understanding of why, not belief. *un·der·stand·ing **.* *1. *The quality or condition of one who understands; comprehension. versus *be·lief **.* *1. *The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: *My belief in you is as strong as ever.* I comprehend the nature and function of the system of celestial bodies. This is not a belief. The only time I EVER hear these two things being conflated is from those folks who are trying to justify faith, by calling the two things one and the same. They are not. Now then, Occam's Razor states: "*entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"* ** ...most commonly known to the masses via Swineburn's modern extrapolation: "...other things being equal -- the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis, that its predictions are more likely to be true than those of any other available hypothesis, and that it is an ultimate a priori epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence for truth" In approaching the world from an empirical viewpoint, I am perfectly ready to adjust that viewpoint whenever there is ample evidence to the contrary. However, scientifically speaking, sometimes an anomaly is simply an anomaly, a coincidence simply a coincidence. When such anomalies are not readily reproducible in a laboratory environment, or with the consistency of the sun rising (and hey, bad example there...it's been like clockwork for as long as the planet's been there...but not one faith healer's been able to perform on demand in an oncology ward under scientific observation), then one must rank the value of the "knowledge" presented accordingly. Not being a person of faith, I don't even rank these topics as a matter of faith, religion, spiritualism, etc. I rank them purely from a knowledge perspective. "Faith Based Healing", like Phrenology, and various other now debunked "Alternative Medicines", do not have the weight of medical science in their favor, therefore they are valued near the lower left hand corner of my knowledge value graph. Perhaps over time they will increase in value, should they be shown to have more. Who can say? We still have yet to see if I'll wake up tomorrow. ;) On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for making my point, Chris. You are willing to believe these > things because they are proven to you. That's fine, quite rational, > nothing wrong with it. It is a belief that is not faith based. > > On Aug 5, 8:14 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Molly, really. Haven't we beaten THIS canard to death? Both things that > you've mentioned require no belief whatsoever on my part. They are > probabilities based on empirical observation. There is an extremely high > (somewhere in the order of 99.99999999%) chance the sun will rise tomorrow. > The odds I will wake up tomorrow are less so. No belief necessary. > > > > > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:Molly Brogan <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:21:04 -0700 > (PDT)Local:Wed, Aug 5 2009 4:21 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Non Medical > Healing - The Non-Science of Life? > > > > I am not sure that our beliefs apply only to our faith. Do you > > believe that you will wake up in the morning, or that the sun will > > rise? > > > > On Aug 4, 11:28 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Molly stated implicitly that one had to believe in the cure for it to > > > work, n'est-ce > > > pas? > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:43 PM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure I would classify it as faith, maybe positive thinking. > > > > One is not trying to believe in something, but trying to accomplish > > > > something. Big difference in my book. > > > > > > On Aug 4, 5:40 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Congratulations, deripsni. You've achieved faith as well. That was > a > > > > > necessity mentioned early on by Molly, I believe. > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:36 PM, deripsni <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree with Molly. I have faked myself into good health for > years. I > > > > > > guess the mood does change the chemicals, although I have never > > > > > > considered a mood in it's chemical form, at least not since the > mid > > > > > > 70's. I feel that there is a lot we can contribute to our mental > > > > > > health, which has a major impact on our physical health. Just > think of > > > > > > the change in medical bills if stress was taken off the > disability > > > > > > list.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
