> On Jun 22, 2014, at 9:44 PM, "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> wrote: > > If I may lift a quote: > > "What, in short, has the authority to debar us from trusting our religious > demands? Science as such assuredly has no authority, for she can only say > what is, not what is not; and the agnostic 'thou shall not believe without > coercive sensible evidence' is simply an expression (free to anyone to make) > of private personal appetite for evidence of a certain peculiar kind." > > That is a remarkable statement; however, I am not using 'remarkable' as a > word of praise. > > 'Science has no authority for it can only say what is, not what is not'. I > certainly hope that science does not make any assertions about 'what is not'.
I almost cut that part out and replaced it with ellipses, but I figured that either James was assuming that his context made it clear that what science can't say 'is not' is anything of so vague a class as "something spiritual", or because caught up in his poetic rhapsody he made a mistake. I'm pretty sure he knew of Michelson and Morley's famous experiment. I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt. > Am I to conclude, because my religion demands it, that witches and devils > exist - even though objective evidence and rational examination (science) can > say nothing about them, for science can only refer to 'what is' empirically > evident? "Conclude because my religion demands it"? He said nothing about making logical conclusions or about any exterior demands. This is about the hypothesis that something spiritual is the final cause pulling them to express a belief in that something, and is about the testing of the hypothesis by expressing the belief, i.e., by believing, by living the experiment. > Is it agnostic or scientific to rest my conclusions on compelling sensible > evidence? After all, Peirce's 'Fixation of Belief' readily shows us that > tenacity is one method that rejects evidence; as is authority; and the a > priori rejects peer evidence and rests only on a 'private personal evidence' > . Only the scientific method, rooted in objective evidence of 'a community of > scholars' can lead us to a true evaluation of reality. If your conclusion is that you should dissuade others from testing an unproven hypothesis then do what ya gotta do. "[T]here is no positive sin against logic in trying any theory which may come into our heads…" —C. S. Peirce I'm curious though, did you do the math to estimate just how secure your induction is? Did you estimate the ratio of samples drawn to the total? Did you adjust your numbers for the lack of randomness in your sample draws? Just how scientific is your conclusion? > As for "Without an imperious inner demand on our part for ideal logical and > mathematical harmonies," - my comment is that because, in our species, we > lack an innate knowledge base, our knowledge of 'how to live' must be > learned, developed, stored symbolically and passed on to the next generation. > Therefore, this 'imperious inner demand' is based on the particular needs of > our species. We MUST explore and learn 'what is the nature of the > environment' because we have no innate knowledge. There is no mysterious > 'inner demand'; nor is there a demand for 'ideal harmonies' but instead - for > 'what works here', i.e., for pragmatic results. That's it? You're convinced you've explained the whole situation? Edwina, you don't even know half of what you've claimed to explain. Matt > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matt Faunce > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 9:23 PM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: De Waal Seminar Chapter 9 : Section on God ; > Science and Religion > > Here is William James in his lecture Is Life Worth Living? on the urge y'all > are speaking of. > > "Is it not sheer dogmatic folly to say that our inner interests can have no > real connection with the forces that the hidden world may contain? In other > cases divinations based on inner interests have proved prophetic enough. Take > science itself! Without an imperious inner demand on our part for ideal > logical and mathematical harmonies, we should never have attained to proving > that such harmonies lie hidden between all the chinks and interstices of the > crude natural world. Hardly a law has been established in science, hardly a > fact ascertained, which was not first sought after, often with sweat and > blood, to gratify an inner need. Whence such needs come from we do not know: > we find them in us, and biological psychology so far only classes them with > Darwin's 'accidental variations.' But the inner need of believing that this > world of nature is a sign of something more spiritual and eternal than itself > is just as strong and authoritative in those who feel it, as the inner need > of uniform laws of causation ever can be in a professionally scientific head. > The toil of many generations has proved the latter need prophetic. Why may > not the former one be prophetic, too? And if needs of ours outrun the > physical universe, why may not that be a sign that an invisible universe is > there? What, in short, has the authority to debar us from trusting our > religious demands? Science as such assuredly has no authority, for she can > only say what is, not what is not; and the agnostic 'thou shall not believe > without coercive sensible evidence' is simply an expression (free to anyone > to make) of private personal appetite for evidence of a certain peculiar > kind." > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
