rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/08/84)
> Much as I hate to say it, I think Rich Rosen missed the point in his > response to the C.S. Lewis quotes. As I understand Lewis, he was > questioning the entire validity of human thought within a naturalist > perspective. I don't see that the response addressed the issue at all. > This is a basic problem in most systems of philosophy. Maybe all? > Since everything we know is filtered through human perception and thought, > if we can't trust that then we can't trust anything. Further, it's > pretty easily demonstrated that we CAN'T in fact trust human thought or > perception. This problem is just as severe for the dieists in the > audience, too. They can't say that God guarantees their knowledge of > anything until after they've demonstrated their god, so they don't have > any more tools to work with than the rest of us at the beginning. [DDB] On the contrary, I thought I rather clearly addressed this issue. 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. -- "Be seeing you..." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr