Let me address the insult. What you claimed to explain were the yearnings. The yearnings in just me play out differently than those in a friend of mine. So for you, one person, even given that you are the most informed person in the world on psychology, physics, philosophy, and a broad range of disciplines, and considering all the possible means of making sure the yearning considered all belong to the same class, there is no way you could not make gross assumptions about the cause of our yearnings. You probably very carefully self examined, studied the subject a lot, and judged other people yearnings to be under the umbrella of your explanation. But we reject that. It rings hollow. (More on that later) So my insult is that you're a contemporary human only armed with the knowledge of contemporary science, and you over-estimate the security of your conclusion. Your insult to us is that you say we who reject your conclusion and still keep James's hypothesis alive are ignorantly forgoing the method of science and either using the method of tenacity or a priora.
I see no reason to bar my will to believe that the explanation may lie in part in what is currently occult. And I'll even add to that that it may be the nature of the relation of the occult to us that the occult will always remain occult. (Peirce would scoff at that addition on the grounds that it entertains nominalism, which I certainly still do at times.) Matt > On Jun 23, 2014, at 8:40 AM, "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> wrote: > > In reply to Matt Faunce: > > 1) Edwina wrote: >> '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'. > > Matt wrote: "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. " > > EDWINA: Sorry - I have no idea what you mean by the above. But, I think that > the scientific method, which is NOT just induction, is not confined just to > the observable. It includes logical analysis. After all, we cannot > immediately observe the laws of organization of a chemical, but we can > observe the results of that organization and thus, logically deduce those > laws. > > 2) Edwina: 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? > > Matt: "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. > > EDWINA: He was referring to "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." > > That seems to me to be about 'logical conclusions' . What 'exterior demands' > are you referring to? > > Now, to claim that a particular result - let's say a perfectly formed flower > in tune with its environmental realities - is due to a final cause of a > 'spiritual something' is an assumption. > I can observe the same perfectly formed flower and assume that the 'final > cause' is a necessary physico-biological requirement for the preservation of > matter/energy on this planet. > > 3) Edwina: 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. > > Matt: If your conclusion is that you should dissuade others from testing an > unproven hypothesis then do what ya gotta do. > > EDWINA: But the whole point of the scientific method is to test an unproven > hypothesis! The focus is on how you test it! With only your tenaciously held > beliefs? With the words of some authority? With only your own personal > experience? Or with careful objective repeated testing within a 'community of > scholars'? > > 4) Matt: "[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? > > EDWINA: I agree with Peirce - any and all theories should be tried and > tested. What 'induction' are you referring to? Do you think that the > scientific method is confined to physical results? Does it also involve > logical analysis? > > > 5) Edwina: 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. > > Matt: 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. > > EDWINA: That's not a rebuttal of what I said, Matt. To just move into a > personal insult is a 'cop-out' in a discussion. So - point out my lack of > knowledge! > > > > 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 .
