Dear David,
Your philosophical arguments, whether things or people outside of yourself
exist, were once made by a philosophy professor in a classroom, however, the
students observed that whenever the bell ending the class would ring the
professor had no problem finding the door to exit the classroom. The human
"device" can experience hallucinations but such is not the case with
mechanical, electrical, etc. devices. The latter constitute the data for
science. Philosophers raise all sorts of interesting questions but they
supply no answers. Birds know nothing of aerodynamics but still fly. We are
the same. That is the mystery of life. You live without being able to prove
that you are alive. No matter how clever you think philosophers are there
are all sorts of implicit assumptions they make in their musings without
their knowledge. In fact, David Hilbert, the father of axiomatics, showed
that Euclidean geometry needed 21 axioms rather than the five that we
normally teach in order to derive rigorously all the theorems of Euclidean
geometry. Therefore, I agree with you that we have to make assumptions
otherwise we would get nowhere. Absolute knowledge is not attainable by man,
but man can still understand and explain. Philosophers should not take
themselves to seriously.
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: David F Siemens <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: alexanian@uncwil.edu <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
Cc: burgy@compuserve.com <burgy@compuserve.com>; gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu
<gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Monday, October 09, 2000 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Omphalos
>
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 08:41:45 -0400 Moorad Alexanian
><alexanian@uncwil.edu> writes:
>> Scientific data is collected by mechanical, electrical, etc. devices
>> and so
>> cannot be classified as illusions. If that were the case, then we
>> are all
>> interns in a mental asylum. Only man can have illusions. Of course,
>> there
>> are some who consider certain observations as the subject matter of
>> science
>> that are not. Moorad
>>
>Moorad,
>You are making the naive assumption that you cannot hallucinate devices.
>This is the practical assumption which all individuals attempting to
>communicate share. But we need to back up. Historically, one of the
>dominant schools of philosophy was skepticism. St. Augustine countered
>their rejection of all possibility of knowledge by noting that, whatever
>they doubted, not one of them could doubt that he, the doubter, existed.
>Descartes, a millennium later, phrased it positively in his Cogito, ergo
>sum (I think, therefore I exist). I have, with every act of awareness,
>the direct evidence of my existence. But I cannot provide that evidence
>to anyone else, nor can they, assuming they exist and have the same
>internal evidence, provide their evidence to me. Because of this, I
>cannot prove that anyone else exists, for they may be something that I
>generate subjectively. Additionally, I cannot prove that there is a world
>outside, for I may be imagining it all. Someone may think that hitting me
>on the nose will prove their existence. But it may only show that I can
>imagine some very unpleasant events. Some wiseacre students then tell a
>fellow, "You don't exist. You're just a figment of my imagination." This
>is a flat lie, for no one is crazy enough to argue with what he knows is
>imaginary. Consequently, if there are any solipsists, they are found only
>among the totally unresponsive mentally ill.
>
>The Omphalos approach plays with another matter that cannot be disproved
>but is not believed, that the world was created five seconds ago with the
>appearance of age, all the memories, etc., that make it seem
>older--whether 6000 years or 15x10^9 years ago makes no difference.
>
>There are also other items that we cannot prove by observational
>evidence. These include the other assumptions that are foundational for
>science. Philosophers look at them, and other matters, and ask such
>questions as whether they and their consequences are logically
>consistent, whether they produce a simpler explanation than alternatives,
>and the like. But these do not provide strict proof, any more than one
>can prove the axioms of Euclidean geometry. The best we can do with the
>last is a proof that it is consistent if, and only if, the Riemannian and
>Lobachevskian geometries are consistent. Euclidean geometry is the best
>to use for terrestrial measurements, but relativity requires a Riemannian
>metric, at least in its current form. Since Whitehead was successful in
>translating Einstein's work into Euclidian geometry in terms of what was
>then recognized as relevant, I suspect that a more comprehensive
>translation is possible, even though no one seems to want to tackle the
>job.
>
>Just as specific theorems can be proved when one accepts Euclid's axioms,
>so specific consequences can be shown when certain assumptions provide
>observations that fit into a specific scientific theories. But the very
>observations depend on scientific theories, so there is no independent
>proof. The fact is that human beings are finite, extremely limited, even
>though we do not often think about these restrictions. The dim mirror
>that Paul notes applies to more than the spiritual.
>
>There is another point that Augustine held to be vital: credo ut
>intelligam or "I believe in order to understand." Faith in our unproved
>assumptions is the basis for all that we claim to know--with the one
>exception. Faith is the basis of science as much as it is our eternal
>hope. Those who come to the world to do science must believe that it
>exists just as surely as those who come to God must believe that he
>exists.
>
>Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 08:57:36 EDT