From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 09:58:35 BST
Ham,
Apart possibly for the word "universally" in your definition of an
empirical fact, I'd say that was about as succint a statement of the
truth as I've heard in a long time.
The Deutsch book I referred to recently, despite its physicalist main
thesis, has an excellent "philosophy of science" piece on the "problem
of induction" which ends up supporting Popper, but which goes through
the "why wouldn't you jump off the Eiffel Tower" thought game at some
length - don't try this at home :-).
ie it's not a test you've actually made, even once, let alone
repeatedly - so we need to be slightly careful about the word "test"
here - can be indirect, by inference / reasonable extrapolation -
awfully like induction, but not that formal or universal in reasoning
methodology because the world is not a scientific experiment, or even
a rehearsal for one.
Ian
On Apr 12, 2005 8:26 AM, hampday@earthlink.net <hampday@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Marsha --
>
> Marsha asked:
> > Am I totally nuts?
>
> Gee, I don't know. Have you had your head examined recently? (I have.)
>
> Seriously, if you will read my last posting to David, I think it will
> enlighten you as to the difference between beliefs that have empirical
> validation and those that don't.
>
> I'll try to make it simple. In the practical world of houses, trees, and
> I-pods, we need a reliable set of principles to build, maintain and operate
> things. Reduced to its simplest form, an empirical principle is a "fact"
> whose reliability has been universally established by observation and
> repeated testing.
>
> Any other kind of belief may or may not be a fact, but we do not know.
> Sometimes we're just ignorant of the facts and accept a belief on hearsay or
> as part of a tradition, such as folklore, superstition or religion. Some
> beliefs stem from intuitive concepts that simply can't be tested by the
> empirical method. Is there a god? Is there a hereafter? Is there meaning?
> What is consciousness? What is nothingness? What is the essence of
> reality? What is goodness? -- these are questions that fall into the domain
> of Philosophy. To the philosopher, they're more important than empirical
> knowledge about the physical world. But the conclusions that philosophy
> comes up with are not "factual". They are metaphysical hypotheses based on
> logic and reason. And while they can and do influence our beliefs, they
> can't be proved. (Not in this world, anyway.)
>
> As to where your personal beliefs fit into this scheme, I'd best let you
> decide.
>
> Best regards,
> Ham
>
>
> 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 : Tue Apr 12 2005 - 10:03:05 BST