Well, I had been hoping for an intelligent response to this thread. It has been over a month since I posted and only seventy nine people have even read it so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The fact that so few people have even taken the trouble to look appears to imply that "Defining the nature of rational discussion" isn't an issue held in high regard here. That is too bad as it is actually the veritable key to understanding the universe. So I will respond to the only reply on the thread in the fond hope that further responses might occur.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
Is all that a definition of the nature of rational discussion?
|
"All"? If it were "all", it would have to be a lot longer. I presumed you already understood much of the concept before I started. My interest was in clarifying a very important issue central to all analysis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
Rational means based on reason. Even a squirrel can have it's reasons, although it couldn't afford the time to step through them during it's acrobatics.
|
"Couldn't afford the time to step through them"? Am I to interpret that to mean you believe squirrels have the intellectual capacity to step through the logical analysis of the problem that confronts them and it is only their busy work day which prevents them from doing so? I don't think you intended to imply such a thing. What I think is that you have failed to comprehend the central issue I tried to present.
The issue I tried to communicate is the difference between beliefs and deductions. Deductions require logic and verification of the steps required can be accomplished. That there are verifiable steps which will lead inevitably to beliefs is itself a belief. And as Qfwfq says, the squirrel couldn't afford the time to step through them (even if he were intellectually capable); well we can't afford the time to step through them either (no matter how intellectually capable one might believe they are).
What I was trying to point out is that, anytime we lose sight of the verifiable issue, we are blinding ourselves to the possibility of error. That act is irrational in the extreme and is the major error made in almost all philosophical discussions (an opinion only). All I am really asking is careful recognition of that very real difference: the difference between what we know and what we think we know.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
I will leave your other points for discussion in your other thread.
|
Apparently Qfwfq had little to say about these other points which, for some reason beyond my understanding, he felt were "off topic" on the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Since he is the authority on this forum, I will try to make those points a little clearer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
What would you say if I told you that determinism is a central element of explanation and not of reality at all? If we decide not to explain it, reality is nothing more than a collection of unrelated events in the past. Events which we cannot revisit to assure ourselves the description we are working with is correct (think about that one for a moment).
|
If we decide not to explain it, what do we discuss? I've thought of these things often, for more than just a moment, without you telling me to. |
I never said I had no interest in explaining things. What I was trying to communicate is the idea that this is a fact which should be kept in mind when one goes about constructing an explanation.
If anyone is interested in a serious discussion of how what we know and what we assume bears on explaining the universe, let me know.
Have fun -- Dick
Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity
