Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!usenet
From: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: re antirationalism
Message-ID: <1990Jan17.115414.20536@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 90 11:54:14 GMT
References: <4813c23a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc.
Lines: 48
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson)

In article <4813c23a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>, nelson_p@apollo (Peter
Nelson) writes:

>>ME> Just what do you mean by "observable facts we can all agree exist"?

> I would start by evidence of our senses.   That should be sufficient
> for just about anything we are likely to encounter on this newsgroup.

> In the unlikely event that indirect phenomena, like the existence
> of alpha particles of electromagnetic wave phenomena becomes an issue
> then we can all present the evidence for our positions.   I maintain
> that there is no disagreement about these things among us.

  But these issues are settled by making judgements. We make
judgements like "General Relativity is the best gravitational
theory in the classical limit", even though an infinite number of
other theories fit the data just as well. Is this allowed?

  If it is, why is such a judgement by general consent of those
who have studied enough to have an opinion acceptable, but
judgements such as "Beethoven is a better composer than
Saint-Saens" or "Stalin's policies were morally bankrupt" *not*
acceptable?

> How?   I am saying that a religious belief is one that is taken on faith;
> that the believer "knows" it to be true even if he can neither show it
> to you (evidence of senses) nor base it on some more rigorous intellectual
> framework such as science or mathematics, for instance.

  What is the basis of these more rigorous intellectual
frameworks, however? Your position comes close to saying that if
something is obvious to the meanest intellect then it is *ipso
facto* false.

>Science is not something to "believe in"; it is merely a useful
>tool which *I* choose to employ where I can.

  Since you are unwilling to assert there is any truth in
scientific pronouncements, I'm not surprised you think the same
of judgements of value. But then why pick on those who believe
there is something more to truth than utility? Do you think they
are wrong? What do you *mean* by thinking this, if so?

  Pragmatism is not pragmatic--it fails on its own terms.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Last week in a dream I gave a fellow my shirt buttons to differentiate
and the fellow ran away with them." -- Engels