ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076) (12/07/84)
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. A detailed analysis of and solution to this basic philosophical problem is considerably beyond the scope of this response -- or this responder, for that matter. However, I think that Descartes was pointing the right way when he said "I think, therefore I am". I'm as sure that I think as I am of anything else. (Fire prevention week: In case nobody has noticed, I DON'T CLAIM TO HAVE A SATISFACTORY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS I DESCRIBE ABOVE.) I think many of the details of the scientific methodology that has developed over the years are intended precisely to attempt to counter the basic problem that men are easily fooled, easily led, etc. -- David Dyer-Bennet -- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb