Russell Standish put it well. But let me try a further comment. You wrote,
"C. S. Peirce would point out that if you truly behave AS IF something is
the case, then you believe it to be the case. To Peirce, that’s just what
belief IS. "
According to that would Peirce say that animals have beliefs
Russ,
I know that we
disagree, but I think there is still some confusion about what, exactly the
disagreement is, and I would like to try to clarify.
Being consistent with other discussions that have been
had on this list, I am definitely not
arguing that, as you put it, "one conceptualizes, and t
Hi, Russ,
C. S. Peirce would point out that if you truly behave AS IF something is the
case, then you believe it to be the case. To Peirce, that's just what
belief IS.
He's the one that calls Cartesian doubt a dilusion.
Nick
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun..
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 12:23:25PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
>
> I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction]
>
> is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the way
> back
>
> into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem
Eric,
This is an important point -- and I disagree with you about it.
>From my perspective action precedes conceptualization; from yours
conceptualization precedes action.
You say "To 'have faith' is nothing other than 'to act as if it was the
case'." The implication of that perspective is that
But Russ, come on now. To 'have faith' is nothing other than 'to act as if it
was the case'.
Thus, if we act as if induction is the case, we have faith in induction. If I
see that someone routinely relies on induction when trying to figure things
out, and I have seen that he acts with confidence
Aside: It seems the Gmane archive of this conversation is the last listing
on the first page of a Google search for 'MerKaBa antenna'. The rest (I did
not bother to look farther than the first page) are all references to the
first hit, In5D.org. Additionally, all are very wu and rather in coherent,
I find it highly implausible that anyone who sees the authority/value
of a god to be more appealing than the authority/value of the
scientific approach is going to challenge science on the basis of the
definition and use of "induction".
As to the source of my own beliefs about the world, they come
Nick,
As far as I can see, the difference between (scientific and naive daily)
induction and faith is that induction is a statement of how we operate
whereas faith is an imported belief.
You don't need to have faith in induction to operate as if it were the
case. That's simply how we evolved to b
Hi doug, and Bruce
I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose email
message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I am
curious about your response.
I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction]
is better than thei
10 matches
Mail list logo
