|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
28th May 2013, 11:58 AM | #3081 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sometimes
Posts: 2,240
|
While your last sentence is true, the fact that a person can believe in demons without ever encountering a contradiction doesn't mean that there wasn't ever a contradiction. In fact, we can see how the position that leads to belief in demons is far from the most consistent one. It just takes digging a little, epistemologically.
Step one: is there any conceivable explanation for why "bad things" (whatever they are, exactly) happen, other than "because demons make them happen"? The answer is, obviously, "yes". Step two: among the different conceivable explanations for why these so called bad things happen, which one do we prefer, and on what grounds? Here's where consistency enters the picture. Is there an intuitive reasoning tool at play when we're faced with different conceivable explanations for a same phenomenon? In fact, is there a limit to how many different explanations we can conceive for a same phenomenon? Why not fairies instead of demons? Why not my old right shoe from the 20th dimension? As the saying goes, "if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras". Of course, no one stops you from replying "why not Bruce Lee on a flying saucer coming right from the Sun?", but how many times are you going to be willing to discard the explanation that requires the least number of unwarranted assumptions, and on what grounds are you going to build a consistent way of choosing your preferred answer that allows you to safeguard belief in demons? "Demons" is a non-starter, epistemologically, for these reasons. That's why Occam's razor is a useful philosophical thinking tool, and why applying it consistently is... well, consistent, even if fallible. Sure, you can say that someone can philosophically rationalize belief in demons. While this is trivially true, it's irrelevant to the question of whether we can philosophically determine which tools work and which don't. In fact, good philosophy can be ignored as easily as science if someone really wants to believe in demons or whatever other nonsense. The difference is that bad philosophy is still called "philosophy" while on the other hand, bad science is called "pseudoscience" (i.e., not really science). It may appear that, unlike with philosophy, invoking the name of science puts us in a safe place, only that it doesn't either, because even if the restrictions for what we can call "science" are much more severe, its borders are not that clear-cut, and because trust in science (let alone trust in the term "science") is not the same thing as science. We still have to work out if that stuff is good stuff some way or another. |
29th May 2013, 05:10 PM | #3082 |
Unlicensed street skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
|
annnnoid, that was very helpful, to bring it around to a home base, so to speak, that I can identify with.
And you know what, you've actually changed my mind. And I'm not being sarcastic, you have. I've actually been wrong about this one. You're right, what I wanted was wrong. Thanks. That feels better, actually. I owe you one. I imagine you've opened up opportunities for some wonderful reading over the next few years. |
__________________
. How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper? |
|
30th May 2013, 12:14 AM | #3083 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
31st May 2013, 03:00 AM | #3084 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
Exactly, rationality etc, is something which happens in the subjective world. Indeed so is science, as without this subjective world to perform science both the processes involved in science and the understanding of what science is and does would be impossible.
Quote:
One of the first tasks of philosophy is to illuminate the mind of the thinker to the nature of his/her own (and therefore humanity's) limitations. Thus refraining from the confining of existence to the naive notions of human thought. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|