Hi Steve, > Steve: > >> All I'm saying is that if someone would evaluate a claim based on > >> logical > >> cohesion or evidence or what ever standards he may have normally for > >> intellectual quality, he should apply the same standards to claims made > >> about, say, the virgin birth of Jesus or Mohammed flying to heaven on a > >> winged horse. > > Platt: > > What I've been trying to get across, apparently without success, is that > > there is more than one standard involved in intellectual quality besides > > reason and the standards of science, including an aesthetic standard and > > a DQ standard (illumination). Also, I've tried to point out that whatever > > standard you choose, it cannot prove its own validity. Thus, faith plays > > a role no matter what your standard is -- you ultimately accept that > > standard on faith. > > Steve: > At least it seems that we understand one another at this point. > > I disagree that there is another standard for intellectual quality > than reason and evidence because all I mean by reason and evidence is > intellectual quality. I am not presupposing any specific method or rules to > define what constitutes reason and evidence. > > But I agree that science is certainly not the final say on truth. It > sounds like you are talking about scientism--the claim that only > scientific claims are meaningful which itself is not a scientific > claim. I do not have this sort of faith in science. As you point out, it is > self-defeating. > > The basic argument you make is that no matter what your standard is, > you ultimately accept that standard on faith. I disagree. Pirsig > illustrates that a taste for evidence and reason is an aesthetic one > based on analogues upon analogues. There is no accepting a standard > of truth on faith when you think of truth as that which is good by > way of belief. > > On the basic level you are talking about, truth is sensed or intuited > rather than consciously held to a specific standard that one has chosen. > And one person's truth is another's falsehood. Discerning truth is a matter > of taste not a matter of faith. This is of course not true for science > where specific standards of truth have been established. But for an > individual making a valuation of a claim to truth, faith is not necessarily > required. Reason and evidence is not a standard that someone picks. Reason > and evidence are just words for intellectual quality. It is just judging > what is good and bad in terms of intellect. > > People don't run down a checklist of pre-decided standards for what > is good by way of belief. Even if I did make a list of standards, it > would be an attempt to describe this intuitive truth-sense rather > than a definition of what is true to be accepted on faith. The so- > called Laws of Logic are descriptions of what people seem to agree > produce quality intellectual patterns. They are descriptive rather > than prescriptive. They are not accepted on faith, rather they are > intuited.
An excellent analysis, Steve. I agree in every important aspect. I could argue that it would be legitimate to cite as an example of what I mean by faith Pirsig's faith in the validity of intuition. But, I won't. That would be needless nit-picking at this point. I agree that truth is essentially a personal sense of rightness that one feels rather than rationally arrives at. I have this quote above my desk: "So convenient a thing it is to be a rational creature, since it enables us to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." -- Ben Franklin > >> Platt: > >>> Science believes the > >>> scientific method is the only reliable method of establishing > >>> truth and > >>> material entities are the most fundamental things that exist. > >>> These are > >>> philosophical assumptions. They are not provable by the > >>> scientific method. > >> > >> Steve: > >> This is true of the SOM scientist. But it is irrelevent to whether faith > >> in the sense of believing things that run against one's own sense of > >> intellectual quality is good or bad. > > > > Platt: > > If one's sense is the determinant of intellectual quality, then my > > sense of > > such quality is as valid as yours. > > Steve: > Yes. I agree. > > The sort of faith I'm railing against is the choice to deny one's own sense > of intellectual quality. As long as people keep talking about the > intellectual quality of a given claim, conversation about trying to agree > on what is good to believe can continue. The conversation stopper that we > are facing in this country is this use of faith. As soon as someone appeals > to faith to justify a belief, the conversation is over. We are not supposed > to question someone's faith. Use of the term is a signal that means > whatever I just said is not open for discussion. > > For example, if a politician says I oppose such and such legislation > on the basis of personal faith, there is no way to respond other than to > vote him out of office. Anyone who appeals to faith as a reason for > something should be laughed off the podium. Such a use of faith is just to > say you have no reasons or are simply choosing not to use reason. This > "laughing off the podium" would certainly occur if a politician ever said, > "my faith in Zues, the God of Thunder, compels me to vote for this > proposition," and the same thing should happen to any politician who tries > to bring faith into a debate. I am not as harsh as you in judging someone who uses her faith as a reason for believing something. I'm very reluctant to "laugh anyone off the podium" because I know I don't know everything. But I will walk out on anyone who uses personal attacks, such as currently being employed by Bill and Hillary, playing one-upmanship and attempting to win the day by odious comparisons and ridicule. That's low level sleaze. > There are a couple other issues I want to respond to in your last > post that may be better off in a different thread. I look forward to it. Regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
