From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 02:54:04 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 08:57 pm, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>> Harvey and I always seem to look at things differently. He writes
>>
>>> So when people point out a logical flaw, it is like a math error.
>>> It is not quoting dogma. It is pointing out invalid thought. Not
>>> politically incorrect thought because it comes to the wrong conclusion,
>>> but invalid thought because it is internally inconsistent or makes
>>> a simple error of logic which invalidates itself.
>>
>>
>> "Invalid thought?" Now I've heard everything. This tops any
>> political correctness I ever heard. With Harvey as Leader we'll
>> be able to scientifically and mathematically expose the thoughts
>> of those who are illogical. You can't be serious!
>
>
> I'm quite serious. Scientific method, logical thought, and pan-critical
> rationality are intended to point out illogical thought processes. When
> people express a proposed sequence of thoughts, they can be
> scientifically and mathematically critiqued. Internal errors and
> inconsistencies can be identified objectively and specifically.
> Otherwise, what did you think the tools of Rational Thinking were for?
A teensy problem with this approach should be considered. The
notion that scientific method and logical thought are the only
ways or the only valid ways of knowing seems to be implicit in
the above. But that assumption is an epistemological theory - a
notion about what is to know and how and what we can know. It
itself cannot be validated by scientific method and logical
thought. So it immediately becomes obvious that some things
that are true and that all are truth is based upon cannot be
validated by scientific method and logical thought alone.
Science and mathematics are very powerful tools indeed but the
notion that all ideas and thoughts should be subjected to
scientific and mathematical critique and rejected as invalid if
they cannot be approved under these methodologies is
unwarranted. You can even get to the validity of your own
methodology that way. Your methodology is not self-contained.
>
>>> If you are not using our Extropian methodology, what
>>> methodology are you using to arrive at your "truth"?
>>
>>
>> So now it turns out that Extropianism provides a methodology
>> for obtaining the truth? I am almost speechless. I really
>> wonder if back in the days that Max More was dreaming up the
>> extropian principles he had the faintest clue that he was
>> on the verge of crystallizing a methodology for obtaining
>> truth. What utter nonsense.
>
I am especially speechless since the majority vocal view seems
to be "we don't need no stinkin philosophy - we have Science".
Science is a methodology for discovering certain kinds of truths
about certain types of situations. The claim that it is the
only way of finding truth is not science. It is a philosophical
assertion and must be evaluated within the realm of philosophy,
especially metaphysics and epsitemology.
>
> What do you think "Rational Thinking" is seeking if not truth? Why
> "remain open to challenges to our beliefs and practices" or "welcome
> criticism of our existing beliefs while being open to new ideas" if not
> for the purpose of obtaining truth?
>
Rational thinking is not well defined in this dicussion. I would
not call that which cannot be adequately dealt with by
scientific method and mathematics "irrational" necessarily.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:20 MST