Posted on 12/06/2003 9:14:26 AM PST by John W
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:32 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I suppose that's true. But some foundational beliefs are more useful than others. Probably best to drop it there ...
. . . The only escape from faith is mental nullity.
Thank you for posting William James' astute insight, cornelis. At bottom, we all stand on faith or we do not stand at all.
James is mistaking motivation for result. George W. Bush may yhave been motivated by personal ambition to run for the Presidency. Nonetheless, his actions as president should not be judged by what motivated him to run for president, but by whether they were wise or unwise, good or bad.
Whatever back-assward route you take to a scientific result or mathematical proof, the result or the proof is judged only by its rigor, and not the route by which it was obtained.
Of course. This has been said many times, many ways. But it's Christmas when we positively revel in uncertainty, so have a Merry Christmas! and give Cratchet the day off.
That is also an interesting problem. I better not make the mistake of passing any judgment on your motivations for posing criticisms that are strange to the essay.
?
In short, your criticism doesn't square with the views of James' essay.
Sentence yours no sense made.
In short, your criticism doesn't square with the views of James' essay.
James was asserting that philosophers pretend to be dry rationalists, but in fact in their work are motivated overwhelmingly by irrational considerations.
My rebuttal is that as long as the result is rational, the irrationality of the protagonists is irrelevant.
Of a truth, all that either of us can actually know of a person's motives is their own testimony - which may be true or not.
What I have deduced of Hawking's motives has to do with the content of his lecture and indeed, I may be wrong because I cannot truly know his thoughts. What raised my suspicion was his mention of Young Earth Creationism without an apparant purpose in the context of the lecture except to ridicule. The phrasing of the subsequent sentences and paragraphs only added to that impression in my view.
By contrast, Burt Ovrut - who also explores the possibility of a Big Bang-less beginning in his ekpyrotic cosmology - does not go off-subject at all. Thus I have had no reason to raise an eyebrow when reading or listening to his thoughts.
Both the Platonist scientist and the Aristotelian scientist are valuable contributors, IMHO. The Plato/Aristotle debate continued with Godel/Einstein and who could argue their contributions?
Today, the most notable Plato/Aristotle debate is between Penrose/Hawking who have collaborated various times over the years. They seem to spur one another on.
As an example, in the Penrose/Hawking debate it has been mentioned several times that the Aristotelian like Hawking, having received evidence to support a theory, is satisfied and wants to quit - whereas the Platonist like Penrose wants to continue until it makes sense.
The current such issue as I recall is the bridge between quantum and classical physics. Penrose says a new physics is needed to resolve the observer non-locality “paradox” and Schrodinger whereas Hawking is satisfied with the tools at hand.
So if Penrose wins and a new kind of physics is born in solving the problems – or if Hawking solves the problems with existing tools – either way – progress is made!
I am Platonist because the philosophy aligns closely to the Truth as I know Him to be. But I would never dismiss a theory offered by an Aristotelian.
Around here it's known as the Boop/Henry debate.
You've now posed a second or modified disagreement.
In the first instance, James is accused of a mistake which can only be made by someone who hasn't written "The Sentiment of Rationality."
In the second instance, what James takes up in some 30 pages to show what is relevant is now merely dismissed by a brief "is not."
Here's what's important. The reader of the essay will note that James' evolutionary view of a moral universe is one that admits the relevance of practical interests in human agency. Such interests disclose what has been sidelined by cognitive purists as unconscionable. Such interests include the many powers congenial to the human being such as freedom, will, courage, risk, and faith. There is a reason for his usage of "sentiment."
And so his take on "irrationality" runs in another direction. He notes that the rational closure against final answers, is no different from the mystic's whose "peace of rationality may be sought through ecstasy when logic fails." Those who wish detour this fine essay and James into a rational - irrational duel have to be reminded that his concerns run deeper: "Faith is synonymous with working hypothesis."
I now notice that the firecrackers on this thread about NASA, thrusters, and malfunctions, start somewhere around reply #189. Again, James is apropos.
But nature has put into our hands two keys, by which we may test the lock. If we try the moral key and it fits, it is a moral lock. If we try the unmoral key and it fits, it is an unmoral lock. I cannot possibly conceive of any other sort of "evidence" or "proof" than this. It is quite true that the co-operation of generations is needed to educe it. But in these matters the solidarity (so called) of the human race is a patent fact. The essential thing to notice is that our active preference is a legitimate part of the game--that it is our plain business as men to try one of the keys, and the one in which we must confide. If then the proof exist not till I have acted, and I must needs in acting run the risk of being worn, how can the popular science professors be right in objurgating in me as infamous a "credulity" which the strict logic fo the situation requires? If this really be a moral universe; if by my acts I be a factor of its destinies; if to believe where I may doubt be itself a moral act analogous to voting for a side not yet sure to win--by what right shall they close in upon me and steadily negate the deepest conceivable function of my being by their preposterous command that I shall stir neither hand nor foot, but remain balancing myself in eternal and insoluble doubt?True, this is not argument enough to say BB does or doesn't resort to a bit of quackery. All the same, it is a very good essay and well worth the effort to read for those who suspect the nullifying amnesia of those who have bagged the order of the universe through dismissal.. . . To sum up: No philosophy will permanently be deemed rational by all men which (in addition to meeting logical demands) does not to some degree pretend to determine expectancy, and in a still greater degree make a direct appeal to all those powers of our nature which we hold in highest esteem. Faith, being one of these powers, will always remain a factor not to be banished from philosophic constructions, the more so since in many ways it brings forth its own verification. In these points, then, it is hopless to look for literal agreement among mankind.
(Besides, why do you care? You don't pay taxes! Don't rock the boat. ;O)
Nope. Same point I made the first time.
If you want to debate an entire essay, you'll have to post the essay. If you're going to post excerpts, be prepared to debate the excerpts. Like many of my generation, I read 'the Varieties of Religious Experience back in my adolescence. I haven't read anything else by James.
However, let's consider a concrete example. The four color theorem was proved by a computer. What faith was inherent in that proof?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.