MD Certainty - was Is Morality relative?

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Wed Jan 05 2005 - 11:26:05 GMT

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101"

    My dear Platt,
    You wonder why I get frustrated with you !
    Full marks (again) for turning a natural language statement of mine into
    some assertion to be challenged purely logically.

    That said, you continued and didn't miss the point.
    But you go off into much wider areas too quickly - my whole thesis in fact,
    and I do not have much time this morning ...

    Easy point first ..
    You asked -If the uncertainty of which you speak is "vanishingly small" in
    "real life," why be concerned with it?
    I answer - In real life I'm not concerned with it, but when I'm having
    debates with pedants (sorry, philosophers), I need to point out that in the
    back of my mind, that that thing of which I am pretty certain is not some
    "god given" absolute, and still actually subject to doubt - at some level -
    keeping an open mind.

    Harder point ... (my whole thesis, as I said)
    What amount of mathematical / physical / logical certainty in engineering
    (or any other business decision) ?
    I'd say 20% if you're lucky, the rest is ??? Habit, Common sense, DQ,
    Humanity ??? That's what I'm trying to work out.
    Read my Dawkins-bashing "Hyper-Rationality" and my "Manifesto", both linked
    on this page.
    http://www.psybertron.org/wip.html

    Ian

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
    Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 4:08 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Re: Is Morality relative?

    > Ian:
    > .
    > > However precise there is always some residual uncertainty, except in
    closed
    > > cases with simple logical / mathematical relationships, where perhaps
    the
    > > certainty is 100%. Of course in 80% of the real life cases the residual
    > > uncertainty could probably be vanishingly small for all practical
    purposes.
    >
    > To Leif you said, "no-one can ever be completely sure of anything" which
    > logically is self-refuting because it asserts something you are completely
    > sure of. Now you may not want to connect this and the 100% certainty of
    > logic/math to "practical purposes" but I'll bet in your engineering work
    > you do precisely that, at least I hope your are not building bridges or
    > the like that a logically self-contradictory. Am I correct in assuming
    > that you would agree with Pirsig that one of the standards of truth is
    > "logical consistency." And a related question: If the uncertainty of which
    > you speak is "vanishingly small" in "real life," why be concerned with it?
    >
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 05 2005 - 11:33:40 GMT