Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <5808@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 10:26:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5808
Posted: Wed Aug 28 10:26:12 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 04:37:41 EDT
References: <4141@alice.UUCP> <938@bunker.UUCP> <1544@pyuxd.UUCP> <952@bunker.UUCP>, <1376@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath net.politics:10758 net.religion:7509


>In article <952@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>>Mr. Rosen, of course, has an unshakable faith that objective reasoning
>>is the one which should be used.  On what other grounds could one
>>possibly say, "Objective reasoning MUST be right" ?  The pot cannot
>>contain itself.
>>
>>The argument is clearly circular; to choose between faith and reasoning
>>(which I consider a false dichotomy in the first place), one must
>>first decide which to use to make the choice.
>
>Actually, the idea that one can *choose* to do without reasoning is
>wrongheaded.

I agree.  This is because I would agree with Gary's remark that faith
vs reason is a false dichotomy.  Exercising faith is not the same
as choosing to do without reasoning.

>The very representation of the alternatives is a mental
>act governed by norms of rationality; one has to be rational in order
>to represent the choice to oneself.

... to represent the choice to oneself in a rational manner, you mean.
It still seems circular to me.  The mere representation of two choices
if a very simple example, one that doesn't really get to the heart of
Gary's point, I think.  Once you go beyond the representation of choices
and rely on a particular method for obtaining the correct choice, you
can't really examine the basis for the method by using the method itself.

>But then, the choice one identifies
>as 'reasoning' must be recognized as the correct choice, because 
>recognizing something as rational means acknowledging it as correct.

Unless one also recognizes reasoning to have certain limits in
a particular case.  Also, even in case like this, reason and faith
may be used in conjunction with one another, the latter picking up
where the former leaves off.

>>Obviously, the reasonable solution is to believe some things on faith
>>and others on the basis of objective reasoning.  That, of course, is
>>what people really do.  For a trivial example, I maintain that each
>>person accepts on faith the fact of his own existence.  No objective
>>reasoning can take place without the implicit assumption that the
>>reasoner exists to do the reasoning.
>
>Bad example.  Each person accepts on *evidence* -- *conclusive* evidence --
>the fact of her own existence, which is implied directly by the fact
>(of which she is immediately aware) that she is considering the issue.
>No faith need apply for the job; reason is quite sufficient here.
>
>--Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief

No, good example.

Sounds like another way of representing Descartes' hat trick to me.
It's still circular.  The conclusion (i.e. "I exist") is already
contained in the premise ("I consider").
			   ^
			   right here.
Evidence can't interpret itself as being evidence for the existence
of itself.
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd