John M wrote:
> Brent,
> sorry if I irritated you - that is felt in your response.
> ----------------------
> You remarked:
> (>"> Upon your:
> > "...an unbiased sample, of the available evidence? " is showing.
> - Who is unbiased? )"<
> You don't have to decide who's unbiased.
> JM:
> My question meant: NOBODY is unbiased. Not you, not me, whoever 'thinks'
> has some position which is hard to overcome.
Why should everyone "overcome" their position.
> In the continuation I would appreciate to substitute your "opinion" word
> by "belief system" - scientific or religious.
> -----------------
> " Is there no reason to prefer science to voodoo?"
> Ask a voodoo official.
I'm asking you.
>A friend was raised by nuns in Chile and asked
> "I was thinking..." whereupon the nun - educatrix shouted her down: "you
> should not "think" you should "believe". (Have you ever believed a
> science-book? Say: stories told by your college-professor? )
No. And if you ask a scientist if he believes some theory you'll either get a funny look or an exposition on the evidence for and against.
> You cannot exclude in reasonable discussions the religious vast majority
> of humanity, - talking about a handful of 'free thinking'
> fundamentalists (science-crazed people) is a vaste of time.
They are not "a vast majority" in most of Europe. So it is quite possible for there to be non-religious societies.
>In our
> western 'culture' the science-belief system is comparable mutatis
> mutandis with the religious one - noting some differences WHAT
> conditions are set for accepting an evidence (=truth).
And is that difference unimportant? Do you consider all belief-systems to be equal? If not, what makes one better than another?
> --------
> Your: "???" - look in your text for "imply".
> --------------
> Your par: "What's your evidence for that? ..."
> You can pick the religious old, I can pkick the others, and tjhose who
> changed (or abandoned at all) religions. I was referring to a "pristine
> faith" of the young. The official religion of a country is politics. I
> don't know about your statistical figures, but social (marital?)
> pressure keeps lots of people as churchgoers from the many millions that
> don't go. Even in countries of an 'official' state-religion.
> --------
> Finally:
> "... in fact they all claim that they are immune from test. This is
> where they fail in their epistemological duty."
>
> You mean the epistemological duty YOU impose? They simply claim to be
> immune from YOUR test, they have their own 'test' and 'evidence'.
> That was my point.
I think humans valuing knowledge is as fundamental as their valuing food and sex. So there is a recognized epistemological duty. Everyone, in every culture, is contemptuous of the fool and a fool is someone who readily adopts false beliefs.
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jan 11 2007 - 19:39:34 PST