Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee
From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Ignorant assumption
Message-ID: <2362@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 8 Sep 88 17:44:45 GMT
References: <1383@garth.UUCP>
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 25

From article <1383@garth.UUCP>, by smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan):
" ...
" Isn't adopting provisional assumptions an act of faith?

Not really.  Consider the provisional assumption of a reductio ad
absurdum argument.

" ... I define faith as adopting assumptions without proof.

It's an odd definition -- if we adopt it, we are led to the conclusion
that all of us have faith and are therefore religious.

" That's it. Any formal system requires such assumptions.

Well, I would say that some natural deduction systems of logic have
no assumptions -- only rules of derivation.  But you can probably
find a definition of 'assumption' that makes what you say true.

" I get the feeling many people like to think of themselves as rational creatures.

If so, that's foolish of them.  I don't think it's foolish to try to
distinguish the rational from the irrational, and sometimes, for
certain purposes, to try to be rational.  You've proposed definitions
of science and faith that prevent one from distinguishing them.

		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu