Hi Platt, 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. >> 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. There are a couple other issues I want to respond to in your last post that may be better off in a different thread. Regards, Steve 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/
