----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:42 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to > > scientific testing as no more real than God? > > You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one question > I asked before you get to ask me another one. Well, you didn't answer my question first, instead you answered one question with 20. :-) The problem I have answering many of them as asked is that they look like "which slit did the single photon go through" questions. My view of our understanding of the Divine is that "we look through a glass darkly." While some understandings are better than others, none really can capture the nature of the Divine. One might then ask why bother? The answer is that doing something with a partial answer is much better than living on the sidelines. For example, I believe that Truth, Good, Evil, Right and Wrong exist. I fully accept that my understanding is partial. But, I'd argue that it is objectively wrong to engage in an action like raping and beating a 5 year old girl. Not just wrong within the moral system I personally have, not just wrong within a certain cultural context, but wrong even if the culture endorses it. Now, I suppose one could come up with a hypothetical where it is the lesser of two evils, but it is still an evil action. I believe that some things are objectively right or wrong. I also fully accept the fact that this is a matter of faith, not knowledge. I know that there is no way to obtain Truth from scientific observation. Rather, one obtains models of phenomenon. >But I'll give you a free > one. I think that any knowledge that can never be tested by experiment > is a poor and useless sort of knowledge, if knowledge it is at all. I > guess I know where you are going with this, and if I'm right, I'd like > to remind you about a discussion we had some time ago (years?) where I > mentioned that most of my morals are based on what I think is the best > way of advancing toward a Banks' Culture level of human development. >And while that is not easily tested by experiment (I have only limited > control over the ongoing experiment and as of now I can only run one > experiment), it IS possible to test it experimentally. It just takes a > very long time, and repeating it would be even more difficult. Dropping the question of the testability whether a particular action contributes to your goal, which can definitely be debatable because of the complexity of our civilization, I'd like to focus on a much more fundamental question. What is the basis for Bank's culture being your goal for morality? Why not the same goal as the antagonist in Earth? BTW, I'm not arguing with your choice. It is fairly consistent with my basic principals, and the antagonist on Earth's is opposed. But, I'd argue that the correctness of this choice cannot be tested by science. If you limit yourself to scientific knowledge, then right and wrong are just subjective values. You have no objective reason to pick Culture instead of Lovecraft as your basis morality. > > P.S. I can give a long answer to your 20 questions if you really want > > that; but it involves how I differ with some of the premises that underlie > > the question...and would take a while to write clearly. > > Why don't we start at the one you just replied to (but did not > answer) and go from there. I'm not sure if we'll get anywhere, > however. You don't really consider yourself to be a typical religious > person, do you? I'm not a typical person, period, so no. >I think that you are exceptionally rational and > scientific and skeptical most of the time, but it makes me uncomfortable > sometimes to see the contortions you put your mind through to keep > the religious/irrational part of your mind compartmentalized but > alive. You mean when I differ with your a priori suppositions? The bottom line is that we have a fundamental difference in our a priori assumptions. No amount of experimentation with falsify one or the other. However, I think that logic can point out the consequences of actually implementing your assumptions or mine. Here's where I think we differ. I will not accept as valid anything that contradictions validated scientific theories. For example, instead of rejecting the validity of cosmology as a model of observation, I would accept the need to fit my theology so that it is consistent with cosmology (which isn't all that hard since non-literalistic interpretation of scripture is the Origenal interpretation). I accept my belief in free will is contingent on the fact that it is not inconsistent with science. >Naturally you would disagree with this, and we aren't likely to > get anywhere on that subject, and I fear your detailed answers would > keep leading back to this. And my point in asking the questions was that > most, not all, religious people were quite irrational, and since you > aren't a typical case, it hardly seems worthwhile. But if you think it > would be productive, go ahead. Actually, I've found that most atheists and agnostics are just as irrational as religious people. Its amazing what nonsense I've been given as "simple reason and logic." Remember that many brilliant people insisted that Marxism was proven logically. I've noticed elsewhere you agree that your philosophy is close to logical positivism. I studied that when I received my philosophy degree about 30 years ago. One difficulty the philosophy had was how little could actually be verified by experimentation alone. Indeed, on sci.physics, Popper was quoted extensively only by a very well educated "crackpot." I called him a crackpot because he kept on insisting that there was a significant problem with special relativity that was ignored because of the philosophical blinders the scientific community had. I'm trying to think of the exception, but I think it is fair to say that it was the crackpots who kept on insisting that the purpose of science to explain reality, while the scientists insisted that science provides models of what we observe. What is real or true is not the province of science. Now, having said that, I agree that virtually everyone acts as though observations have some connection with reality. Few folks will walk blindfolded into freeway traffic. Yet, there is still room in science for a Wheeler who argues "that the universe would not exist without a primitive act of registration." (In short, the universe is dependant on humans for its existence. He remains well respected, and his view is certainly not anti-scientific because it is perfectly consistent with science. I think our most fundamental difference concerns what knowledge is obtainable from experimental tests alone. Its an interesting philosophical question. Its a harder question than appears at first blush. Indeed, the reason Logical Positivism floundered so quickly as a philosophical movement is directly tied to this. As they cut more and more, they found they had little left. So, I think this might be a fruitful place to explore the nature of our differences. I've found it helpful to explicitly state ones assumptions. I would argue that this has worked for me professionally as a scientist and in philosophical debates. But, I realize that's a YMMV issue and I would be willing to look at other areas of exploration. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
