Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Scientism, religion, and evidence
Message-ID: <1093@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Nov-84 16:57:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1093
Posted: Sun Nov 25 16:57:51 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Nov-84 02:59:17 EST
References: <499@wucs.UUCP>
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 52

[]

>[Paul V. Torek]
>Now wait a second.  What's the difference between saying "the natural order
>has been temporarily violated" and ascribing an unusual event to a new
>force or particle?

Postulating a new particle requires that we assume that we were
previously ignorant of it.  This is a reasonable assumption, since
we know that we have been ignorant of a lot of things.  Postulating
a temporary violation of the natural order, however, requires that
we assume that the natural order even *can* be violated.  If the
natural order can be violated, then we can't know that it isn't just
a fluke that reality happens to appear to follow certain rules right
now.  Thus this assumption destroys the validity of rational inquiry
into the nature of the universe.  But if rational understandings of
nature are invalid, why do they work so well?  Why does it appear,
so far, that equations like "F = ma" really do describe nature?  Are
you really willing to believe in a 300 year long fluke?  I find that
assuming nature is immutable is much simpler.

BTW, if rationality is invalid, what do you propose that we should
use instead?

> ...
> The temptation to
>proliferation of hypotheses of new forces should be resisted precisely to
>the extent that it would cripple our ability to understand the world.

On the other hand, we could choose to cripple ourselves from the very
beginning, by making irrational, untestable, a priori assumptions about
nature; assumptions which destroy the very basis of knowledge.

Anyway, the complaint about "proliferation of hypotheses" is bogus;
to propose that the natural order can be violated is to propose a
hypothesis.

> If
>we say "it didn't happen" in the face of a lot of evidence, we may be raising
>our standards of evidence too high, which would also cripple our ability to
>understand the world.

If we set our standards of evidence too low, we may believe anything,
thus crippling our ability to understand the world.

>  --Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047

--
"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
Ken Montgomery
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]