Isn't it possible to hold two mutually inconsistent set of beliefs at the
same time and apply one or the other depending on which seems more to be
more accurate/useful at the time. I know that depending on exactly how one
defines belief someone engaged in such practice get labeled as "irrational"
or "inconsistent". I think, however, that people do this...if only because
the necessity of action places a limit on introspection and self-revision.
I actually don't want to argue in favor of believing in telepathy. I just
wonder if it's kosher to argue that an inconsistent theory must be adopted
on an "either / or" basis. Can't one adopt a sort of Victorian atttidue
and act like it will all work out for the best in the end? Can't one
accept mutually exclusive paradigms on a provisional basis?
Reed Konsler
konsler@ascat.harvard.edu