Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!mordor!joyce!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Ignorant assumption
Message-ID: <1383@garth.UUCP>
Date: 8 Sep 88 00:11:35 GMT
References: <1369@garth.UUCP> <2346@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 81

Seems I made I mistake. When I referred to scientific method I was referring
to a philosophy:

- Nobody plays games with universe. Entities interact in fixed manner; that is,
  the planets go around the sun because the sun's mass has distorted the local
  continuum, not because Ares and Jove and ... are having a chariot race. It is
  assumed the universe plays by a fixed set of rules--the challenge is to
  determine the rules.

- Only public knowledge is necessary to understand the universe. In order to
  convince you I know what a rule is, I have to be to demonstrate it in
  repeatable fashion. Private revelations are not sufficient to demonstrate
  I understand the universe.

It would seem what I mean by science differs from other people.

>" Frequent mistake--to do science you have to accept the scientific method on
>" faith.
>
>Why do I have to do that?  I don't think anyone has to do that.  It's
>just as well people don't have to know that the method will work before
>they will use it, since theories and experiments sometimes fail, don't
>they?

If you are referring to a specific theories, they should never be accepted
as more than convenient explanations given the current facts. Otherwise it
becomes dogma.

I was not referring to this theory or that--I was referring to the
philosophy on which these theories are demonstrated.

>" Essentially science states that the universe is rational and
>" objective.
>
>No, it doesn't.

Assuming the law of the excluded middle law, `No, it doesn't,' means either
science doesn't state this--in which case we are at cross definitions and
nothing further of value can be said--or the universe is irrational--there is
something transcendental which can never be captured by our theories--or
the universe is subjective--and it can only be explained by private
revelation.

>No, it doesn't.  In those instances where theories have worked well,
>we can reasonably conclude that in the relevant domains the universe was to
>a certain extent lawful.  If you want to take a leap of faith and go beyond
>this to adopt science as a religion, of course you may.  You and Mr. Wells.

Science is philosophy on how the universe can be understood. If some aspect
if the universe cannot be understood in this way, then science is incomplete.
Christianity asserts this is true: that there exists transcendental forces
which science cannot explain. That is an assumption.
 
>" Ultimately, any way of viewing the universe is based on assumptions
>" taken on faith.
>
>Maybe, but why view the universe?  We need to adopt provisional assumptions
>to get on, but there's no need to have faith in them.  That's as
>harmful in ordinary life as it is in science.

You need to view the universe, in part, just to get on with ordinary life.
Isn't adopting provisional assumptions an act of faith?

I don't recall saying once assumptions are made, they cannot be changed. If
faith says faith can't be changed, fine, those are your assumptions, but don't
expect me to agree. I define faith as adopting assumptions without proof.
That's it. Any formal system requires such assumptions.

I get the feeling many people like to think of themselves as rational creatures.
I don't know why. I can't think of an rational behaviour which is enjoyable
because rational behaviour is devoid of joy or sorrow or any emotion. It's
the irrational parts of me that have all the fun: watching the setting sun,
feeling the cool breeze, sitting on the lawns watching the geese on Vasona.

I have no problem saying I take these assumptions because it make me feel
good (irrational) or because they are convenient (rational).

I really don't understand anti-religion people. I understand objecting to
the actions of people in the name of their religions, and I understand people
disagreeing and choosing to reject religion, but I don't understand condemning
religion out of hand. Religion is an act of faith. Saying the sun will rise
(or rather the earth will descend) tomorrow is ultimately an act of faith.