RE: virus: Agnosticism
Jim Gadbois (jim@cyberintl.com)
Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:05:01 -0600
>Since you're relatively new (to commenting here in CofV) I'll skip the
>Lovecraft and reply coherently:
>
>>Ok, sorry about the delay. Here we go:<
>
>No need for apologies. I am frequently out of town: I sometimes can't get to
>the Net for a couple of days (or more) at a time. If you don't answer, you're
>busy, that's that. I can wait.
><Snip backquotes>
>>But isn't it the tradition of the scientific community (and within the
>>logic community unless I am mistaken) to hold a hypothesis as true until
>>it can be disproven? That is, in fact, the definition of a hypothesis
>>(an assumption made to test its logical consequences which is accepted to be
>>true until proven false. --Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, 4th ed.)
>
>Not quite certain that the CofV front page intended a hypothesis as such; the
>statements made may be assumptions, but may not be verifiable, falsifiable or
>investigable, which removes them from the realm of Science but not
>necessarily from CofV. Logic has to deal with Godel's Theorem, which says
>that any system contains statements which cannot be proven within that
>system; truth is not assumed as a given. I think what you are doing is mixing
>intent (I need to be interested enough to investigate this hypothesis, or I
>won't ever do it) with truth (I can show that this statement meets the
>requirements of logic, Science or whatever).
>Einstein made numerous theories that could not be tested with the apparatus /
>environments available at the time. They were theories until proven true ( or
>false); then they became part of knowledge instead of speculation. I might
>suggest that the front page of CofV contains theories as well as hypotheses.
>
><snip lobster lips and inhabitants thereof>
>>Touche. But why must we accept everything as false?
>>Seems to me that would be a pretty pessimistic outlook on life.<
>
>I do not propose that everything is false; it may be unknown, or unknowable
>until the distant future allows better methods of investigation (or sharper
>investigators).
>
>>I guess what this whole situation boils down to is that your not going
>>to be able to prove that God does not exist, and I'm not going to be able
>>to prove that she does. So wouldn't the best policy to adopt be that of
>>agnosticism? Agnosticism is basically saying what we are saying, that
>>the entire thing is unprovable one way or the other.<
>
>If your definition of Agnosticism allows improvement (verification) in the
>future, I suppose we are in agreement. If you do not allow future
>verification, that is, "It is now and will forever be unknown," I consider
>that Mystery and a form of Mysticism, and have difficulty with that portion.
>
>>I myself am not agnostic. Agnosticism implies a desire to want to know,
>>a desire to have the answer shown to you, so that you may believe. I think
>>the perfect term to label my religious beliefs would be "passive
>>agnostic". If it's proven to me, fine. If it's not, fine.<
>
>This seems like a really well-adjusted way to deal with an area that many
>people have great trouble with.
>
><snip dualistic thinking discussion>
>>Actually, I was presenting anything *but* a dualistic mode of thinking.
>>The point of the entire message was to show that there is yet another option
>>to theism and atheism...that of agnosticism, and furthermore, that
>>agnosticism is the only logical conclusion from an unprovable argument. I
>>agree,
>>there is not just "belief" or "disbelief", there is also (for lack of a
>>better
>>term) what you described as "non-belief." This non-belief *is* agnosticism.
>
>Actually, I would contend that there are SEVERAL forms of "non-belief"
>running around at the present; there is Science, which accepts as true only
>the proven; Zen, which accepts paradox but denies identity and other common
>conceptions; Objectivism, which apparently accepts three primary axioms and
>denies anything not directly inductive/deductive from those axioms;
>"pancreative rationalism", which has been mentioned but I haven't seen a full
>description of; and probably some more. Labelling them all as agnosticism
>would seem to be a disservice.
>I said your next post would be eagerly awaited, and I was not disappointed.
>Thank you for jumping in, and I hope you enjoy the show!
>Cheers!
>james
after all that, all i have to say on the subject is.... SRI SYADASTI
SYADAVAKTAVYA SYADASTI SYANNASTI SYADASTI CAVAKTAVYASCA SYADASTI
SYANNASTI SYADAVATAVYASCA SYADASTI SYANNASTI SYADAVAKTAVYASCA
and this means: All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some
sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and
meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true
and false and meaningless in some sense
any questions?
BEERS!
jim
>