Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Rosen on reason, etc.
Message-ID: <5365@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Mar-85 01:45:55 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5365
Posted: Thu Mar 28 01:45:55 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Mar-85 01:45:55 EST
References: <1074@decwrl.UUCP> <5266@utzoo.UUCP>, <720@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 82

	"Seems clear" is an assumption, too.  But remember that there
	is no answer to a "why" in the absence of a directed causative
	will.  Thus to ask and to expect a certain answer is to be
	presumptive in the extreme.

I don't think that a direct causitive will is implied. If somebody came
up with a unified field theory, a fair number of ``whys'' could be
answered.  If the mechanics of universe creation were known, the answer
to that ``why'' could be known as well, even if there is no directed
causative will. There may be a reason for all of these but  I just
can't go off to a lab and build a few universes to test out any of my
theories. This is too bad.

Note that saying that these are ``hows'' doesn't change the problem.
There are some ``hows'' which I can't know either. Again, this is
too bad, but I am not going to lose sleep over it...


		 Ah, I get to stop wasting my time with a certain class
		 of questions.

	You mean the "why" questions I was referring to above?  For the
	same reasons?

I mean the why questions I brought up above, yes. But I don't think
that I am not spending time on them for the same reasons. I don't care
how presumptuous I am -- I just care about whether I can get any
results.

	"Camelot!"  "It's only a model."  You make a valid distinction
	here, but all words are just sounds and etchings that represent
	models of reality.  Do they do so accurately or not is the
	question?  Are they used erroneously?

Ah, ``erroneously'' is a funny word. Do you mean ``are they used to
represent things that have no basis in reality''? I think not, or else
you would have to reject ``the current goes down here'' as being
erroneous. Do you mean that they ``are used in ways that are not
useful?'' The problem with this definition is that what you find useful
and what other people find useful may be entirely different. Do you
mean ``are used by people who forget that they are models of reality
and confuse them with reality itself?''

Gee, that is my position, but I brought this one up weeks ago and you
were real upset when I accused you of mistaking your concepts with
reality. What do you mean?

	Interesting notion about models.  The questions then revolve
	around the erroneousness of certain dogmatic models.

Again, what is ``erroneousness''? The confusion of a concept with
reality again?

		 This is another aspect of the Christian/Materialist
		 debates which others (including Christians such as
		 Byron Howes) may find ludicrous.  Certain Christians
		 are claiming the absolute truth of the existence of
		 God and the Bible. You deny the absolute truth of this
		 (or at least, that they have demonstrated this to be
		 the absolute truth). But you are *both* wedded to your
		 idea of an absolute truth -- there is one, and it is
		 important to know whether God is a part of it or not.
		 Since this is one assumption that I do not make except
		 when it suits me (rememeber your search for
		 assumptions, Rich) I find the whole thing rather
		 unusual.

	There is a difference between the absolute truth and words we
	use to represent the absolute truth.  By modeling our words and
	concepts more closely to reality instead of dogmatic assertion,
	by being flexible in receiving new hard information and acting
	on it, we achieve a better picture.  By the way, is it an
	absolute truth that there's not absolute truth, Laura?

Rich, go back and read. I did not say that there is no absolute truth.
I did not say that there is one either. I hold no opinions on the
subject. I use the notion of absolute truth when it suits me and I
don't when it does not.  The concept of absolute truth is another
concept, and, as such I use it when I find it useful.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura