SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Greg or e who wrote (10249)4/3/2001 1:53:48 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
ROFL
I don't mind if God exists. You simply aren't up to proving the thing. Some great thinker at some point may be able to, we'll see.

And I've never defended genocide. Ever. That is just more of your irrationality showing.

The big bang- who knows? Not me. I don't believe science and I don't believe God. I don't BELIEVE Greg. Get it through your head, or don't. But that's all there is to it.

The posts are there for all to read, but either you didn't read them or you didn't understand them. I've no idea which it is.



To: Greg or e who wrote (10249)4/3/2001 3:35:40 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
You will recall that Plato, in the Republic, invoked the image of the Divided Line. The means of knowing were assigned to each segment: noesis, or intellectual intuition, such as we have with axiomatic expressions; dianoia, or discursive reasoning, such as we employ in mathematics, involving the use of postulates and the mediation of inference; pistis, belief or opinion, which can be more or less likely; and fantasia, the imagination, through which we grasp mere images. Each coordinates with particular sorts of objects: the eide, or intelligible forms underlying the design of the universe; the mathematicals, those objects about which we have almost certain knowledge, except for the dependency on postulates; the objects in the world, about which we can have only belief or opinion (although when the opinion is sound, we can call it "right opinion") because there is too much indeterminacy, and they themselves are too changeable; and the images of things, which are wholly insubstantial as such.

One of the interesting things about this scheme is the acknowledgement that even mathematical truths depend upon assumptions that are fitting but not provable, and that nevertheless we consider mathematics to have a high degree of certainty. Also of interest is the idea that statements about things in the universe are always inherently qualified and probabilistic.

Even more interesting, of course, is that the one sort of knowledge that is certain is itself indemonstrable to others: you either see it or you don't. Dialectic is meant to get one to a point of seeing, but is not the same as proof.

Thus, for Plato, there are varying degrees of reliability of assertion, but none can be proven without challenge, although all might be established at a high level of probability.

This seems a pretty reasonable way of viewing things.......