Re: virus: Phaith page on C-Realm.com
Eric Boyd (6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca)
Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:39:17 -0400
Hi,
KMO <kmo@c-realm.com> writes:
<<
[snip]
My guess is that David would agree that the maxim is falsifiable and
saythat his belief in it is proportionate with the evidence for it,
i.e. overwhelming, but subject to re-examination in light of new
evidence. But that doesn't really work, does it? It would be his
commitment to rationality that would prescribe re-examining the maxim
in light of that new evidence. Hmmm.... tricky.
>>
Hmmm... I don't know. I think you've confused two propositions above:
(1) "If truth is the goal, rationality is the way" -- David McF.
(2) "we should proportion our belief to the evidence"
The second proposition is quite widely held, and seems so utterly
obvious from a freethinkers prespective that we pass by it without
thought, but I think that the main content of faith and phaith is in a
denial of it.
Faith and phaith differ in that the former advises breaking (2) when
evidence *is* actually present, while the latter says that {in cases
where evidence can never be applied / for non-falsifiable
propositions}, you may choose to believe/value/embody the proposition,
rather than taking the agnostic position.
Now you state above that "It would be his commitment to rationality
that would prescribe re-examining the maxim in light of that new
evidence", but I don't think that's true. It is his commitment to (2)
that causes that. Is two a rational/logical consequence of (1)?
<<
One thing I would say to prompt a re-evaluation of the question of
whether David's maxim constitutes an example of phaith is this: If
one's commitment is to the truth of a proposition, then one has faith
rather than phaith.
>>
As opposed to the usefulness of the proposition? The value of the
proposition? I've got an interesting idea: could one have phaith in
the value of the proposition; i.e. embody the proposition, bring it to
life, as it were; and then also have a rational argument which
supports it's truth? (and hold the truth value of the proposition
according to the evidence)
In this way, we can continue to say that phaith, per say, has nothing
to do with truth; phaith has to do with value, with meaning and gnosis
(self-knowledge).
The position then is: "Rationality isn't where I'm going. Rationality
is who I am". I value it with my life. I also have this pile of
evidence {a, b, c, ..., x, y, z} that rationality leads to truth,
which is quite fortunate. I like truth!
Can we have our cake and eat it too?
ERiC