[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[markhsmit]

Hi Steve,
I think this is kind of what I said in my response to Krimel just
now.  The need is to satisfy, that is feel comfortable with the
explanation whether it be happy or scary, one just believes (feels)
it is right.  I could go full circle again about belief, but then I would
be accused of being some kind of religious nut again who
is diminishing the Truth about science.

I have many beliefs in many gods, many of which do not
agree with each other, but like I say, there are many ways
to believe, in that I believe.

Cheers,
Mark
Hi Krimel, Mark,



> [Krimel]
> I don't think that "satisfaction" is a criterion for truth. It is a happy
> coincidence when knowledge makes us happy but I fear that often it is just
> a
> sign that we are on the wrong path. I think it is true that I will die one
> day but I don't find that terribly satisfying. If all you want is beliefs
> that make you happy why not drop the pretext and take up painting?
>
> Science may not be the only path to truth or knowledge but I do think that
> other paths are in many ways subservient to science. One can't seriously
> advance a philosophy that claims that the earth is only 10,000 years old.
> Although that is the position advanced by the ICR and taught to students at
> private Christian schools. I for one think inflicting these ideas on
> children is a form of child abuse.
>


Steve:
While satisfaction doesn't work as a criterion for truth, it is worth noting
that from an evolutionary perspective, we only come to seek to know truths
or have beliefs at all as a means to satisfy certain desires.

The desires that scientific beliefs satisfy may not be the same as the
desires other sorts of beliefs may satisfy, so we may not need to worry
about whether a scientific belief is consistent with some other belief if
the desires they serve are kept separate. So I wouldn't say that there is
necessarily any subservience of other sorts of non-scientific beliefs to
science.

Rorty wrote that "On a pragmatist account, scientific inquiry is best viewed
as the attempt to find a single, unified, coherent description of the
world--the description that makes it easiest to predict the consequences of
events and actions..." This attempt is the attempt to gratify particular
desires--the desire to predict and control. If a belief is not held in hope
to predict and control then we need not worry about whether it agrees with
science.

For example, the belief that my wife is the right person for me is not
subservient to any path of justification to satisfy others let alone the
scientific attempt to find a single coherent description of the world.

Likewise, it seems to me that if Mark's belief in God is not part of a hope
to predict and control, then it need not conflict with science.

Best,
Steve
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/