rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/18/84)
> In however many lines above, we've gone from Scientific Reasoning to > equating Reason with Thought. Lewis does not knock down scientific reasoning > and therefore show that all forms of thought are thus of equal validity. > Even Kierkegaard wouldn't agree to that one; consider his lunatic who is > trying to convince people that he is sane by putting ball in his back coat > pocket, and every time it hits his rear, he says "Bang, the earth is round." > What he is saying may be objective truth, but even so it fails to have the > desired effect. Truths have to be relevant. To whom? For what purpose? Truths are truths regardless of their "relevance". Those who would require truths to be relevant (to them and to their world perspective---pre-defined, of course) are looking for a particular "truth" (quotes most definitely necessary), not the truth. > I might well add that Rich's famous wishful thinking defense is a powerful > weapon in these terms. It is certainly comforting to a lot of people that > the universe works like clockwork and is not subject to whim; this comfort > has allowed many people to abandon their Gods and throw their faith to > Science. Contrary to Wingate's continuous lambasting of science (note that *he* is the one who capitalizes it, to make it seem like those who use its methods and not those of religion are somehow raising it to "godly" status; interesting rhetorical trick, but no dice, Chuck!), science OFTEN uncovers discoveries that show that the universe does not quite work in the clockwork manner that some might have come to expect. A quick perusal of the last century in physics would give numerous examples. What is "comforting" (in the sense of a belief used to comfort those who do not understand and fear the world) is believing that there is an entity which controls the universe in a benevolent fashion because that is what you would like to believe. > Unlike Rich, I believe in arguing with people's arguments rather > than what would be convenient for them to believe, so I will not accuse him > of this; I merely want to point out that it invalidates his argument even as > it does mine. I have no idea what Charlie is trying to say here (*he* certainly AVOIDS arguing with people's arguments when it's efficacious to do so), but I think I've shown how my argument is far from "invalidated". -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr