Carol Regehr wrote:
"Personal credulity has a slight advantage over personal
incredulity, at least for someone of a mathematical turn of mind.
For example, I remember the moment when I finally "got" the point
of mathematical proof by induction [(k=n for particular n) and
{(k=n is true) implies (k=n+1 is true)}]. In the aftermath, I
also have a metamathematical appreciation of (a) why I didn't get
it before; (b) why I couldn't articulate, even to myself, just
what was puzzling me about it; and (c) therefore why no one was
able to explain it to me. My lack of the teaching gift hinders me
in helping anyone else across that divide."
While I understand your point, it does not seem (to me) to suggest
that "credulity should win over incredulity."
Some years ago I read, and reviewed for PERSPECTIVES, John Casti's
superb book, PARADIGMS LOST, 1989, in which he examines, as if in a
court of law, the claim that "life arose out of natural physical
processes taking place here on earth." While he found in favor
of the claim "quickly and easily," I found myself, even with the
"strawman arguments" then in vogue, notably those of ICR and the like,
thinking more deeply about how to phrase the questions.
At some point I began to think of the claim, which to me is an integral
part of the GTOE, as if I were on the jury and was charged
with finding the defendant, in this case the simple assertion that the
GTOE claim is not proven (in legal, not scientific, terms) to the same
extent as, say, the fact that the earth is a sphere, incorrect. In spite of
the
efforts of many good people, most of whom I respect greatly, to
convince me that the defendant is guilty, I cannot vote that way.
I understand that Richard Dawkins must therefore put me
into a category which is either ignorant, crazy or wilfully evil.
So be it. One day I will know.
Carol continues:
"Of course, mathematical "truth" and its apprehension are not
exactly analogous to truth and learning in the natural sciences,
for the purposes of your discussion here. But the experience of
the "aha!" moment cuts across categories. As another example, I
remember the spacetime coordinates of the event at which I
finally understood the picture of the 3-sphere. I was walking
past the bike racks on my way to the pool to swim laps during
lunch hour, when it came to me. It was a big deal - Polanyi's
"personal knowledge" - and I flew the rest of the way to the
pool. Reminds me of a family story about my great-grandfather's
conversion. One day he took the wagon to town to buy supplies. On
his way back home, he left town a good and decent man, and
arrived home at the farm a good and decent Christian man, having
met no one but Christ along the way. The "aha!" moment."
I like your grandfather's story. Much the same thing happened to
me -- although the "event," if it was an event and not a process,
happened to me unawares and was realized only some time later.
Best
Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 13:09:06 EDT