devnulvax@stolaf.UUCP (Anonymous) (10/16/84)
<From Mike Huybensz> >I like this response. Partly because I like it when people agree with me. >(For example, William has confirmed that I apply my ideas to myself as well, >without his knowing that I am agnostic, a sociobiologist, liberal, and a >Democrat.) Well, three out of four isn't too bad. (Us born-again Republicans have been there before too. . :-))) ) >William also agrees with me about positive feedback. But then he goes on to >attempt a justification for remaining locked into a positive feedback loop, >supported by a few choice red herrings (such as Nietsche and "shattered >mirror".) Not so much a justification (even if it seemed to end up that way), but an expression of why I feel that positive feedback loops are, right or wrong, an inevitable result of our incomplete ability (in ourselves) to accept a total Truth. And why a simple, coherent mentality gets closer towards that goal than either a purely relativistic mentality that denies any pure existential significance to Truth itself. (i.e., "I have my truth and you have yours. .") Nietsche and "shattered mirrors" were exemplifications of that mentality. >If the original question had also asked how some people escape from convictions >, I would have expanded my feedback analogy to include negative feedback. >Ideas which keep one from rejecting inconsistant data, and thus cause one to >reformulate hypotheses. One common form is the plea for an "open mind". >Another is the scientific method. Actually I see your "positive" and "negative" feedbacks, in themselves, to be the same thing. The plea for an open mind, on it's own merits, is merely a plug for a relativistic mentality, if it isn't expressed in the same openmindedness for the other view that it calls for. If the validity of "openmindedness" is based upon empirical "facts", that's fine, until your "facts" become what you feel, rather than just what you can outwardly sense. And how can you explain basic facts like why I feel some way about something, any more basically than, say, the basicness that I express F=ma? I just *do* feel that way about it, because of how it works for me, just like F just *does* equal ma, because of the way it works when placed into an experimental environment. Unbelievers may look at the equation F=ma and say, rightly, "Well, I wasn't there when you made your experiments, so I'll choose to be "openminded" until the truth of it becomes apparent to me.". If it was a certain feeling rather than an equation, then I'd be up the creek to "recreate my experiment" for this unbeliever. Just limitations in communication. For this reason Thomas Kuhn, in my mind, effectively critiques the ineffiability of the scientific method in his book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution", since the scientific method runs up against the same limitations of communication, and locking into "paradigms", that I do when I try to communicate my faith. >William's ideas of Christianity and other religions being easily digested >pablum for the masses are also correct in my view. They serve an important >purpose, the same way archaic ideas of atoms are taught in elementary schools. >First you learn that atoms are little balls that make up everything. Later, you >learn that atoms are little solar systems made up of protons, neutrons, and >electrons. Later you learn about orbitals... and later about quarks, strong >and weak forces, etc. Well, there is a stage in life where pablum is necessary and healthy, but like the Apostle Paul, I feel that there is a time when that has to be left behind, and some more substantial food has to be tried. Christianity has that as part of it's viewpoint; like a good speaker, it pitches to the *whole* audience, not just the snobs. But it also realizes that some people's ability to accept it's truths are not equal to others, so it provides the pablum as well as the meat, for those who need it. This does not lessen the fact that pablum is viable food, though. (it's far better than starving) >Very little is required to see that traditional religions are insufficiently >explanatory: which is why religions have been strongly selected to cause >immediate rejection of such negative feedback. Some are, some aren't. (depends on what you want explained and how) Most reflect and honest attempt (at least initially) to find what Truth can be found, but like any human institution they fall short because of human scruples and shortcomings. Agnosticism is just as prone to this as anything else- I wonder how it would turn out if it was as widely implemented as Christianity. But Truth's viability is beyond all of this, anyway, and religions won't find it, only individuals. -- The Charbroiled William Gulley {!inhp4 || !decvax} !stolaf!gulley
gulley@stolaf.UUCP (William T. Gulley) (10/20/84)
<From Mike Huybensz> >I like this response. Partly because I like it when people agree with me. >(For example, William has confirmed that I apply my ideas to myself as well, >without his knowing that I am agnostic, a sociobiologist, liberal, and a >Democrat.) Well, three out of four isn't too bad. (Us born-again Republicans have been there before too. . :-))) ) >William also agrees with me about positive feedback. But then he goes on to >attempt a justification for remaining locked into a positive feedback loop, >supported by a few choice red herrings (such as Nietsche and "shattered >mirror".) Not so much a justification (even if it seemed to end up that way), but an expression of why I feel that positive feedback loops are, right or wrong, an inevitable result of our incomplete ability (in ourselves) to accept a total Truth. And that a simple, coherent mentality gets closer towards that goal than a purely relativistic mentality that denies any pure existential significance to Truth itself. (i.e., "I have my truth and you have yours. .") Nietsche and "shattered mirrors" were exemplifications of that mentality. >If the original question had also asked how some people escape from convictions >, I would have expanded my feedback analogy to include negative feedback. >Ideas which keep one from rejecting inconsistant data, and thus cause one to >reformulate hypotheses. One common form is the plea for an "open mind". >Another is the scientific method. Actually I see your "positive" and "negative" feedbacks, in themselves, to be the same thing. The plea for an open mind, on it's own merits, is merely a plug for a relativistic mentality, if it isn't expressed in the same openmindedness for the other view that it calls for. If the validity of "openmindedness" is based upon empirical "facts", that's fine, until *your* "facts" become what you feel, rather than just what you can outwardly sense. And how can you explain basic facts like why I feel some way about something, any more basically than, say, the basicness that I express F=ma? I just *do* feel that way about it, because of how it works for me, just like F just *does* equal ma, because of the way it works when placed into an experimental environment. Unbelievers may look at the equation F=ma and say, rightly, "Well, I wasn't there when you made your experiments, so I'll choose to be "openminded" until the truth of it becomes apparent to me.". If it was a certain feeling rather than an equation, then I'd be up the creek to "recreate my experiment" for this unbeliever. Limitation in communication. For this reason Thomas Kuhn, in my mind, effectively critiques the ineffiability of the scientific method in his book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution", since the scientific method runs up against the same limitations of communication, and locking into "paradigms", that I do when I try to communicate my faith. >William's ideas of Christianity and other religions being easily digested >pablum for the masses are also correct in my view. They serve an important >purpose, the same way archaic ideas of atoms are taught in elementary schools. >First you learn that atoms are little balls that make up everything. Later, you >learn that atoms are little solar systems made up of protons, neutrons, and >electrons. Later you learn about orbitals... and later about quarks, strong >and weak forces, etc. Well, there is a stage in life where pablum is necessary and healthy, but like the Apostle Paul, I feel that there is a time when that has to be left behind, and some more substantial food has to be tried. Christianity has that as part of it's viewpoint; like a good speaker, it pitches to the *whole* audience, not just the snobs. But it also realizes that some people's ability to accept it's truths are not equal to others, so it provides the pablum as well as the meat, for those who need it. This does not lessen the fact that pablum is viable food, though. (it's far better than starving) >Very little is required to see that traditional religions are insufficiently >explanatory: which is why religions have been strongly selected to cause >immediate rejection of such negative feedback. Some are, some aren't. (depends on what you want explained and how) Most reflect and honest attempt (at least initially) to find what Truth can be found, but like any human institution they fall short because of human scruples and shortcomings. Agnosticism is just as prone to this as anything else- I wonder how it would turn out if it was as widely implemented as Christianity. But Truth's viability is beyond all of this, anyway, and religions won't find it, only individuals. -- The Charbroiled William Gulley {!inhp4 || !decvax} !stolaf!gulley