[MD] Metaphysics

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Krimel]
They accept on faith that their cars and TV and computers work for 
reasons. For those people, the majority in fact appealing to science 
as a "reason" is not much different from claiming God made it happen.

[Arlo]
As I suggested for Mark to read, Peirce's essay "The Fixation of 
Belief" illuminates this a bit. There is no doubt that in an 
increasingly complex and time-exhaustive environment, people have to 
accept a certain modicum of information based on the experience of 
others. I've never set foot on the moon, but I accept (provisionally) 
the experiences of others who have done so. I accept (provisionally) 
the theories of internal combustion without attempting to prove or 
disprove them myself because those theories allow me to enjoy riding 
my Harley through beautiful mountain passes.

But I do think there is a good deal of difference between saying "my 
Harley runs on an internal combustion engine, and I don't understand 
it, but I accept it" and saying "my Harley runs because angels push 
my bike". A primary difference is that should the engine stop 
working, and I became sufficiently motivated to do so, the theories 
of internal combustion (and mechanics, etc.) will allow me to get the 
machine working again. No amount of "praying to God" will fix a broken engine.

** And, by the way, should in my effort to repair the engine I find I 
was lied to, that internal combustion is a elaborate hoax perpetuated 
by a group of scientists, and not why the engine works, I'd be able 
to figure out what does make it work, and drop my provisional 
acceptance of internal combustion.

Again, as I said to Ian earlier, there is a profound difference 
between accepting a provisional premise that is always checked 
against experience and accepting an absolute statement despite it 
being checked against experience.