From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Having to believe
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:51:09 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com


In article <60011.2129212079@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
|> > |> Gary Merrill writes:-
|> > 
|> > We do not have ideal theories.  The crucial question is not "What
|> > is an ideal theory?" but "What is a good theory?" and "What makes
|> > one theory better than another?"  The bottom line is not "What is
|> > true?" but "What is it most reasonable to believe?"
|>  
|> Not "What is it most reasonable to believe?", but "Is it useful?", because
|> we do not _believe_ in theories...because we do not treat our theories
|> as we treat _the scriptures_...we may believe in a scripture, but what is
|> the use of saying "We believe in our theories or such and such a theory !" ?
|> I think you are confusing the theories with scriptures ...

The confusion is not mine.  I did not, for example, use the "believe in"
locution that your comment rests so heavily upon.  If you really want to pursue
this, you need to begin by distinguishing what it means to *believe* something
as opposed to *believe in* it.  At this point, I do not have a clue as to
what your criticsim really is.

|>  
|> See what happens then;
|> Jussi Haukioja says:-
|>  
|> JH>Not *any* consistent set of beliefs. The body of beliefs must also be
|>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> JH>consistent with observations. Maybe this is what you meant, but then it 
|>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> JH>would be more reasonable to talk of judgements instead of beliefs.
|>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^

The specific jargon is unimportant, but what is the distinction you intend
here between judgements and beliefs?

|> it would be even more reasonable if we didn't confuse "theories" with
|> "scriptures" n the first place, and utter nonsense like:
|>  

Okay, but first you need to tell me with some precision what the difference
*is*.

|> "I believe in such and such a theory (QM if you believe:-)), 
|> it is the truth itself, and it's consistency with observational 
|> evidence implies the truth of my outstanding belief :-> 
|> I would look rediculous if I didn't have a belief in (QM) after such solid,
|> consistent observable evidence, there would be something wrong with my

Well, you've certainly picked an odd theory to bestow such strong belief in!

|> judgement (:->if I had any left), wouldn't it My Dear Adaimantus ? 
|> It would also be unsensible :-> bla..bla..bla..
|> bla..
|> bla..bla..bla..bla..
|> bla..bla.."
|>  
|> (see how I've jumbled belief/believe/theory/truth/consistency/observational/
|> evidence/judgement/observable-evidence/unsensible and it is really bad
|> if I still managed to pass my message to you :-> Unless you think that 
|> I am wasting my time :->)

I think I am beginning to agree with this last part here.

|>  
|> here we end up in the abyss of confusions with our concepts like:
|>   observation/consistent/evidence/judgement/truth/true/theory/belief..

Please ... not "we".  Do not include me in the confusions you have
manufactured all by yourself.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta