news:QWYWa.4352$jg7.4298@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "The Danimal" <dmocsny@mfm.com> wrote in message
> news:cac1ad88.0308021334.5de023d4@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom" <dantoNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<v_QWa.1887$jp.1679@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > > "Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6d8c5a02.0308011857.48633d1f@posting.google.com...
> > > > IT was asked what he believed, and this is what he said.
> > > >
> > > > I believe in facts. Dynosaur and neanderthal remnants, as well as
> > > > Paleolithic tools and figurines, are a fact.
> > >
> > > IT was wrong. The facts are rocks. The attribution of rocks as
> > > "Neanderthal remnants", "Dynosaurs", "tools", and "figurines" are
> beliefs.
> >
> > Actually you cannot be entirely sure the rocks are really there.
> > Your brain might be floating in a nutrient bath and getting fed
> > nerve impulses produced by a very sophisticated computer simulation
> > of everything your brain thinks it is experiencing and doing.
>
> That's another belief.
>
> > Our only quasi-objective method of determining reality is to note
> > the consistency of multiple clues. We see what looks like a solid
> > concrete wall; when we push our hands against it, we feel the wall
> > pushing back. And so on. Every test we can think of yields the same
> > conclusion about the wall's existence. But if every such test is
> > all part of the same giant simulation there is no way to determine
> > whether all the sensory experiences are fake. Every test the brain
> > would think it is running would merely be a simulation of that test,
> > with the results rigged to pass the test.
>
> You're dismissing the evidence by postulating something for which there is
> no evidence.
>
> > One possible way for the brain to spot the nutrient-bath simulation
> > setup would be for the brain to try performing surgery on itself
> > in the simulated world.
>
> Feel free to drill holes in your head, if you think it's a good idea.
>
> > > From this evidence, I conclude that IT cannot distinguish between
> beliefs
> > > and facts reliably.
> >
> > Close enough, though.
>
> Close enough to declare a belief to be a fact? No, IT's not close enough
> for that.
>
> > Explaining the fossils by anything other than
> > the obvious explanation requires believing in things for which there
> > is absolutely no evidence.
>
> Explanations aren't necessary. Facts are self-evident.
>
> > There is also the utilitarian aspect of theories. The belief that
> > dinosaur fossils are the remains of extinct animals is part of
> > a larger belief system with useful predictive power right now.
>
> It's not the belief that's useful. It's the theory. Or do you make no
> distinction between belief and theory? I realize that many people, even
> many scientists, don't. That's why science, as a practice rather than as
a
> philosophy, has been criticized by Kuhn, Popper, and other
post-modernists.
>
> > In contrast, the competing belief that a capricious god created
> > dinosaur fossils to test our faith in the Bible has not led to
> > any useful scientific breakthroughs that I know about.
>
> Different faiths. No papal edict has led to useful changes in Hinduism
> either.
>
That was a very good answer.
Uncle Davey
|
|