Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Wishful Thinking Message-ID: <1412@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Aug-85 13:54:41 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1412 Posted: Sat Aug 3 13:54:41 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 10:06:33 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 109 Keywords: cows in space Xref: watmath net.religion:7327 net.philosophy:2191 Even > = rlr, Odd > = Ellis >>>>Is it (science) "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*, >>>>my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is? > Science cannot help me decide, for instance, whether I like a musical > composition, or whether love exists, for that matter. I do not > consider this to be a failing of science, but if it were complete in the > sense that it could describe the entire universe, then it would be able > to do these things. No one is asking you to "decide" these things through science. And yet, the basis for your liking or not liking stems from your make-up, your history of experience, etc. Science is only the method for acquiring facts, it is not the facts themselves. > BTW, what is it you suppose that that I wish for? A non-causal world in which you can have your free will and eat it too. You've said this more than once. >>> Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you >>> really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical >>> argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its >>> fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of >>> my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real >>> discourse. >>Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you >>must believe in it for a reason. If not factual evidence, and if not just >>because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful >>thinking) then what??? > Then one's own subjective experience of awareness is not valid evidence > that `awareness' is a real entity. After all, it might have been a > hallucination. If you really believe it's all an illusion, then stab yourself in the arm with a fork. If not, don't bother positing such a position for argument's sake. Objectivity in science is designed to try to ensure within this system an avoidance of such subjectivity. > If so, I guess I do not exist, since there's absolutely no objective > scientific evidence whatsoever for my awareness, and there never will be. I agree. You don't exist. > By Occam! Conscious awareness is as no more real than Santa Claus, > free will, or even God.. As I said in the last article, Occam says to reduce assumptions to a minimum, not to ignore evidence. > Rich, now look what you've done! Does this mean we've heard the last of you now that you don't exist, or will your posting appear "acausally" from time to time? >>>... you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below: >>> The universe of science is All That Is. >>> Science will somehow be able to describe everything. >>Here we go again with science-hating. The universe of things that are are the >>things that are. That's my position. > You are incorrect when you insist that I hate science. In fact, I like > science very much, and have devoted a great deal of time to the study, > although, admittedly, I am not a scientist. Since you have so many > misconceptions about me, I suggest that we attempt to correct a > language difficulty that has thwarted our communication somewhat. If you don't hate science, then explain what the term "universe of science" means, if not some debasing term that names a specific subset of the universe as being in the realm of science. Please. > I had hoped that you would say "Yes, those are my beliefs" or "No, they > are not". Unfortunately, you responded with a tautology. Because you made remarks about a "universe of science". > So I will ask you as a straightforward question: When you say something > exists, do you mean, loosely, that it must be an object or phenomenon > that could be verified by the scientific method? Ass backwards. The scientific method, by its nature, with viable tools, can determine whether or not an object or phenomenon exists in a physical sense. Other things that "exist", like "love", "music", etc. are human labels that are placed upon certain collections and ordering of physical phenomena with certain causes. > As a final example, Santa Claus is `real' in the universe of > many young children. I wasn't aware that young children lived in a different universe that the rest of us. (Though you might think so from the way some parents reat them.) > This is all quite sloppy, I know. Me too. > But with so many different viewpoints > and kinds of people, it is handy to have some way of fairly dealing > with them all. I certainly cannot assume that what seems true to me > will likewise be true to others. "Seems true"! Now you've got it. Seeming true doesn't make something true. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr