05-10-2006, 02:47 PM
Dilemma:
Is one being stubborn and ultimately irrational for insisting for a
rational explanation? (What a bore!) The flip side questions: is one being gullible? Is one simply quitting short in look for a better answer (What a shame!) How about transcendentals? Then there is Godel: some things can't be proved or disproved in mathematics (beware of what Godel and mathematicians mean by "proof"). Maybe some things are beyond any form of argumentation. (Interestingly Godel claimed he built a proof of the existence of God).
There seems to be no clear demarcation between what is rational and what is ultimately irrational. It is a fascinating problem. I feel that if a person calls himself out from this fascinating and possibly eternal problem, then he is, unfortunately, resorting to a form of solipsism, even if he does it in "good" company (from within a group of believers).
I say "unfortunately" because I firmly think the only way to break out of the quick-sand of subjectivity is to keep in focus the problem of convincing someone else, especially those do not share the same preconceptions. It is not healthy for one to use only evidence that supports his favorite idea. It causes all kinds of trouble. "Believe me". More generally it is not healthy for those that share beliefs to interact exclusively with one another. In particular, at the extreme, soliloquy is not healthy and ultimately it is sterile (although the rigorous a-social solipist, the real loner, can make some challenging points).
Consider how many people do not appreciate the importance of NOT selecting/rejecting favorable/unfavorable data to support a pet idea or theory. You then shouldn't be surprised then that even less value augmentations and confrontations. Just think how "experimentation" in the modern sense of the word became a respectable form of argumentation only recently in Western history. And still today too few people value experimentation, and indeed most educated people actually consider it a mere technical detail rather than a philosophically deep moment, as a true confrontation with "reality". There is more good philosophy in performing and interpreting a simple inclined plane experiment in an introductory physics course than in reading tonnes of philosophical books.
To me, what it means to frame a convincing argument with another person is the issue. I do not feel that arguing with oneself is a solid enough ground to get anywhere significant without some check with the external world, be it another person or an apparatus.
Is one being stubborn and ultimately irrational for insisting for a
rational explanation? (What a bore!) The flip side questions: is one being gullible? Is one simply quitting short in look for a better answer (What a shame!) How about transcendentals? Then there is Godel: some things can't be proved or disproved in mathematics (beware of what Godel and mathematicians mean by "proof"). Maybe some things are beyond any form of argumentation. (Interestingly Godel claimed he built a proof of the existence of God).
There seems to be no clear demarcation between what is rational and what is ultimately irrational. It is a fascinating problem. I feel that if a person calls himself out from this fascinating and possibly eternal problem, then he is, unfortunately, resorting to a form of solipsism, even if he does it in "good" company (from within a group of believers).
I say "unfortunately" because I firmly think the only way to break out of the quick-sand of subjectivity is to keep in focus the problem of convincing someone else, especially those do not share the same preconceptions. It is not healthy for one to use only evidence that supports his favorite idea. It causes all kinds of trouble. "Believe me". More generally it is not healthy for those that share beliefs to interact exclusively with one another. In particular, at the extreme, soliloquy is not healthy and ultimately it is sterile (although the rigorous a-social solipist, the real loner, can make some challenging points).
Consider how many people do not appreciate the importance of NOT selecting/rejecting favorable/unfavorable data to support a pet idea or theory. You then shouldn't be surprised then that even less value augmentations and confrontations. Just think how "experimentation" in the modern sense of the word became a respectable form of argumentation only recently in Western history. And still today too few people value experimentation, and indeed most educated people actually consider it a mere technical detail rather than a philosophically deep moment, as a true confrontation with "reality". There is more good philosophy in performing and interpreting a simple inclined plane experiment in an introductory physics course than in reading tonnes of philosophical books.
To me, what it means to frame a convincing argument with another person is the issue. I do not feel that arguing with oneself is a solid enough ground to get anywhere significant without some check with the external world, be it another person or an apparatus.
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
