Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!pyramid!thirdi!sarge
From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Science and Aesthetics
Message-ID: <94@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Aug-87 02:15:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: thirdi.94
Posted: Fri Aug 14 02:15:23 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 17:02:48 EDT
References: <120@snark.UUCP> <86@thirdi.UUCP> <8707@ut-sally.UUCP> <20070@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <8727@ut-sally.UUCP> <2495@ames.arpa>
Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Distribution: world
Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology
Lines: 56
Keywords: elegance beauty truth

I regret having to take issue with one who seems to support my assertion of the
importance of aesthetics in deciding which of alternate theories to accept.
BUT...

In article <2495@ames.arpa> yamo@orville.UUCP (Michael J. Yamasaki) writes:
>All philosophy is not Western, nor is it logical, and certainly formal logic
>is not the paramount of philosophy.  Please explain in the context of logic
>the notion of no mind in Zen Buddhism or the Tao.  Are these not Philosophy?

When you put it that way, I'd say "No. They are religion."  I think parts of
Buddhism are philosophical and -- guess what? -- these are the rational parts,
not the mystical parts.

I think it's important, too, to make a distinction between "illogical" and
"non-logical".  Just because something is non-logical doesn't mean it can't be
understood through rational means.  For instance, rabbits and planets are
non-logical, but reason and logic can be applied to understanding them (as well
as perception, which is also non-logical).  Fundamental assumptions and
perceptions cannot be argued for (ex hypothesi).  They are simply accepted for
non-logical reasons.  Since any body of knowledge rests on some sort of
assumptions, one could say that any knowledge has a non-logical base.  But that
doesn't mean its ILlogical.

I think philosophy may contain non-logical components, but I don't think it can
survive being ILlogical.

>Truth is not necessarily deduced truth, nor is it necessarily the result of
>causality.

Granted.  It may be perceived truth or -- possibly -- intuited truth.  I doubt
that that was ever in question.  I'm not sure I understand the part about
causality.  A priori truths (like mathematical truths) do not seem to be based
on causality, but you appear to be making some other point.

>Beauty is as good a criterion for Truth, as deduction and experimentation is
>for truth. 

I would concur that it is a criterion; I wouldn't be so bold as to say that it
should have the same weight as experimentation and deduction, in scientific
pursuits, though it may have *greater* weight in artistic pursuits.  Is that
what you meant to imply by using "Truth" in one place and 'truth" in the
other?

>Science is a philosophy.

I don't agree with this assertion, because I see science as going after
empirical truths while philosophy goes after non-empirical truths (as in our
recent lengthy discussions of this topic).
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge