Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!sri-spam!mordor!lll-crg!seismo!vrdxhq!rlgvax!takashi
From: takashi@rlgvax.UUCP (Takashi Iwasawa)
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.politics
Subject: Re: privatization of education
Message-ID: <1078@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Aug-86 15:32:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1078
Posted: Fri Aug 22 15:32:03 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 05:02:26 EDT
References: <2413@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2777@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> <963@kontron.UUCP> <1001@kontron.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Reston, Va.
Lines: 74
Xref: watmath net.sci:1549 net.politics:18629
Summary: Fine distinctions

In article <1001@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > In article <977@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good
> > > > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of
> > > > rational conviction."  Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays".
> > > 
> [some stuff of Clayton Cramer and Mike Huybensz deleted.]
> [the following stuff is Clayton]
>
> Do you agree with Russell's above quoted statement asserting that opinions
> held "with passion are always those for which no good ground exists" or
> not?  I pointed out that the statement is blatantly false, and that Russell's
> statement is reactionary to emotional positions.  Now you claim it was
> a rhetorical argument.  Which is it?
> 
 Please!  Before we start arguing, let's be sure we understand what we are
arguing about.  Given an opinion held by person A, whether A has a rational
(note, not "good") basis for the opinion, whether there is any rational
support for the opinion, and whether the opinion is "true" in some sense,
are three entirely distinct things.  Let me illustrate with an example.

I am walking down the corridor when I meet my friends John and Mary.  I pull
a gold twenty dollar piece from my pocket;  John and Mary have never seen
a gold coin, so they are naturally curious.  I tell them, "I'm going to flip
this coin;  do you think it will fall heads or tails?"  Mary immediately
says, "It'll be heads!" and John says, "You are wrong!  It will fall tails!"
They both passionately defend their opinions.

[ Note that at this point, neither Mary nor John have any rational basis for
  their opinions, even though one of them must be correct! ]

While John and Mary are arguing, Bill comes down the corridor and hears the
argument.  Bill says, "I think the coin will fall heads."  Mary immediately
rushes over and kisses Bill.  I ask, "Why do you say that, Bill?", and Bill
replies, "I recognised that "magic" coin of yours; I know it's weighted so
that it falls heads 90% of the time!".

[ Note that there was a rational argument supporting Mary's opinion, even
  though Mary didn't know it. ]

While Mary and John continue to argue, I go around the corner and flip the
coin.  When I come back, Mary asks, "What's your opinion?".  I grin and
answer, "I don't have an opinion, because I KNOW!"

[ End of illustration. ]

So how does this apply to the quote from Bertrand Russell?  If the quote is
correct, Bertrand Russell said:

> > > > "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good
> > > > ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of
                                                                ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^
> > > > rational conviction."  Bertrand Russell in "Skeptical Essays".
        ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
[ emphasis by me. ]

Obviously Bertrand Russell is talking about whether the person holding the
opinion has a rational basis for the opinion, not whether the opinion is
"true", or whether there is any rational basis anywhere for the opinion.
Since "opinion" by definition cannot be known to be "true" by direct observa-
tion or strict rational proof (otherwise it's factual knowledge, not opinion),
a person holding an opinion by rational conviction must be aware that there
is some possibility, however small, that he is wrong (Bill knows there is
a 10% chance that the coin will land tails).  Hence I think Bertrand Russell
is right.  I think Clayton is misconstruing Bertrand Russell when he says:

> .............Russell's above quoted statement asserting that opinions
> held "with passion are always those for which no good ground exists"

To my mind, Bertrand Russell is saying no such thing.

PS: Shouldn't this all be in net.philosophy?

				Takashi Iwasawa