mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (12/11/84)
In article <321@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: [Warning: long quotation follows] > I spent >over two paragraphs (long ones) stating that all Lewis can say is that if >we can't ultimately prove scientific reasoning to be ultimately valid, then >any reasoning (even lunacy) would be equally valid. In examining the >difference between lunacy and reason, we see reason coming up with >significant >reproducible results. The reason is not because the word "reason" and that >which goes with it contains some sort of magical power; it is because what >reason and logic and science and objectivity mean is the use of the best >observational methods to get the most reliable and verifiable results. >Indeed, >any observation takes place within the system, and is confined to within that >system. So the question arises: is the system "real", or is it "really" >an illusion? I ask: is a video game real or is *it* an illusion? When you >sit down to play GALACTIC GARBAGEMAN, do you really sweep up space debris and >collect it in your space truck for crushing and disposal? No, but you do >do something. You press your fingers on buttons that cause display of >various >types of pictures on the screen. Where does the "system" of the video game >end and where does *our* "system" begin? Of course, this relates back to >the Unanswered Question: how do you define natural in such a way that there >would be a SUPERnatural? Wingate, et al, just goes on requesting reasons >that >people use to reject explanations involving the "supernatural", but he (and >others) are simply unwilling to answer the questions or define their terms. >Until such time, their arguments are on shaky ground, if one can call it >"ground" at all. > >The point is, as I've said, even if we cannot prove whether or not our >"system" >is anything more than just an illusion (a part of some other "system", which >...), the best observational methods possible will provide the best results >about that system, and choosing to be less rigorous to argue that one's >special >vantage point might somehow be correct is not tenable, because anything that >happens to us happens within this system, by whatever definition you choose. >And thus, the most rigorous standards of observation within that system will >still yield the most reliable results. Phenomena claimed to be from outside >the system may be claimed, but not if you're going to deride the >observational >process based on it being limited by the unverifiability of thought and >reason. >If you do, your own phenomena and explanations are twice as worthless (??) as >the phenomena and explanations of more rigorous observers. [Sorry to quote at such length, but it appears to be necessary...] 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. Now I simply cannot see that the techniques of science are relevant to a demonstration that the universe is uniform. My whole point is that we adjudge the validity of science in three ways: first, that it is internally consistent, second, that it is consistent with observation, and third, that some other form of reasoning or thought or emotion or whatever leads us to believe in it. 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. 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. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge.