>>>At 12:17 PM 10/23/97 -0400, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>>
>>>>If "faith" is belief without evidence then assumptions are identical to
>>>>faiths.
>>>
>>>Not true. Assumptions are often the conclusions from different arguments.
>>
>>Only if that argument is explict, otherwise I stand by my previous statement.
>
>In that case literally all beliefs are based on faith. Personally I don't
>find a definition very useful if it includes all instances, do you?
I get your point. However, it does not follow that because we need to
make arbitrary divisions to complexify our understanding that the lines
you have chosen to draw are the only ones, the best ones, or in fact
unique in any way.
By the way, I do believe that all beliefs are based on faith, or assumptions,
or axioms. Take your pick. You want to make some axioms out to
be incredibly unreasonable while others (like the assumptions of Euclid)
to be reasonable approximations based upon evidence. But, David, the
minute you engage an argument with the phrase "assuming that..." you
are in a realm where the "reasonableness" of on set of assumptions over
another is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE.
This happens at work to me all the time. When considering how to interpret
the data or what experiments to do next a collection of scientists, all working
together on the same project...closer than family in some ways...will come
to diametrically opposite conclusions about what the best course of action is
depending upon their SUBJECTIVE evaluation of the huge net of analogies,
rules of thumb, and frank guesswork that we try to throw over a very
complicated reality.
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------