Newsgroups: alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.philosophy.jarf,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.zen,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!lugb!news
From: doug@latcs1.lat.oz.au
Subject: Re: Please give me your opinion about doubts !?
Message-ID: <1995Mar21.144003.26400@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>
Sender: news@lugb.latrobe.edu.au (News System)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 14:40:03 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University, Australia
X-Newsreader: <WinQVT/Net v3.9>
Lines: 164
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:26137 sci.philosophy.meta:16857 sci.philosophy.tech:17137

u9301732@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (F.P. Nezavdal) writes:
>
>Hi, I'd like to know your thoughts on whether or not it is possible to
>doubt everything, and why?

I like Paul Hsieh reply
>>     I doubt it.

Others writing in this thread, comment that this terse response
expands out to  the basic tenant of the philosophy of Descartes.

According to Descartes, the only  certitude is that based on absolute
doubt regarding everything and anything. However,  a necessary
precondition for reaching this conclusion is that the subject is
already thinking about the problem. Since the conclusion is
irrefutable (no one can demonstrate the contrary with any certainty
whatsoever) the precondition is reasonable. This is a form of
inductive reasoning leading to the deductive formula "I think,
therefore I am." Thought predicates being, so to speak. In this way,
Descartes arrived at an intuitive expression of the most fundamental
expression of deductive reasoning. The ultimate deductionist found the
ultimate deduction. In so doing he expressed the basic paradigm--and
its all of its individualistic overtones--that characterise most of
Western thought. The abstract individual self gropes into the murky
world of a shifting and fickle reality riddled with subjectivity--due
to the subjectivity of the individual itself.

Western thought handles deduction with a great deal of confidence, but
is rather shaky on the inductive aspects of reasoning, although its
empirical sciences rely so heavily on it. To get a handle on that side
of the equation you have to go to a rather Islamic or Arabic way of
reasoning and reverse the formula "Thought predicates being" to "Being
predicates thought." In this way the principle of scepticism is
transformed to the underlying principle of dogmatism. The
individualist "I think therefore I am" one-liner transforms into the
collectivist "We are, thus we think." version. In this case thought
follows from objective being and not the other way around. From this
angle, the only objective being is that of the collectivity as no
individual can rid itself of the subjectivity of that state of being.
Be (collectively) then think (in a collectivist manner). This mode of
thinking is essentially inductive in nature.

The history of philosophy is, in many ways, a history of the warfare
between the sceptical and dogmatic modes of thought. Which is the
right way? Karl Popper found a very simple formula for amalgamating
the prestige of Western science together with its essentially
sceptical philosophical foundations. A theory was "scientific" (and
hence good)if and only if it was "falsifiable." All theory which did
not meet this criteria (such as collectivist Marxist thinking--the
arch enemy of his time) was "non scientific" and by innuendo, bad.

Poppers formula provides a nice excuse for many scientists to stop
thinking any further into the question. Some stop thinking altogether
and just go back to the mundane chores of the lab. Poppers
"falsifiable" paradigm became a kind of inviolate Law. Such people
even come to believe that this Law is "true" and ignore the rather
simple observation, that the Law cannot itself be of "scientific"
status as it does not satisfy the same criteria it propounds.
According to Poppers Law, the scientists may be scientific but where
does that leave Popper?

This leads to another contribution in this thread coming from an
apparent devotee of Godel, and the inacceptibility of paradox.

Bernard Robertson-Dunn writes:
> If you doubt everything then you doubt that you doubt and you have a
> paradox.
>
> See Godel.

If one untangles these words somewhat, one could say that the
deductive principle of Descartes needs an inductive process in order
to arrive at the principle. Alternatively if one starts with the
inductive argument, then it has no value without an eventual deductive
validation. A deductive principle needs induction. Induction needs
deduction. (Induction and deduction are meant here, to be of a deeper
kind than the simple Western variants of these terms) Is the universe
founded on a deductive principle or an inductive principle? Which is
valid, the dogmatic, collectivist world view or the sceptical,
individualist world view? If you take both as valid then this leads to
a paradox as the two principles are inherently contradictory. In fact
our Western adversary system of government is based on this
contradiction. The collectivist Left confronts the individualist
Right. The West has found a neat way of resolving the paradox of these
two contradictory world views by not to allowing them to govern at the
same time. This wouldnt make much sense to Godel, as his system is
totally devoid of any temporal considerations whatsoever--a rather
archaic view of reality and not much to do with the one we live in.
In fact, what the above commentator is saying is that no principle,
even that enshrouded in the absolute certainty of the uncertainty, can
ever apply to *everything*. Unfortunately, he then lapses into the
belief in another absolute certainty--the certainty that paradoxes are
unacceptable.
One reply to this might be to say that all fundamental epistemological
questions present themselves in a paradoxical form.
See Kant.
The question of whether the collectivity in which the individual is
immersed predicates or is predicated by the lot of that individual
cannot be answered in one way or another. Both sides have to be
accepted. After all, the collectivity is itself an individual. Kant
explained this in the form of his antinomies. Knowledge arrived at by
pure reasoning alone will *always* present itself in the form an
antinomy. The universe started at a fixed point in time | the universe
is eternal, for example. The Big bang verses Hoyles steady state
theory--pure Kant. Neither proposition in the antimonic statement can
be proven to the detriment of the other.
Many people have interpreted Kant as presenting a brick wall. Pure
reasoning, without relying on any experience whatsoever, leads to
antinomies and paradoxes, thus becomes a dead end. All knowledge must
thus rely on experience as this is the only way to overcome the
apparent paradox.
Personally, I take an alternative view that Kant signals this as the
starting point of a new science rather than the end.
An inkling of where to go from the Kantian antinomies is provided in
the following thread:
Tom Snyder (drsnyder@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> Hans-Peter:
>
>	You write, "there are probably no absolute truths."
>
>	Is that an absolute truth and do you believe it absolutely?


Which can translate to
The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.
This rather tired old statement, is really the highest of the
antinomies, and it is here that we can see the way forward. The reason
why there are no absolute truths is that:
All truths are relative.
Which finally provides us with the statement of absolute truth that we
have been searching for. The above statement declares the absolute
invariant of the system. Using this idea, we can make Kant's footpath a
highroad. A perfect, systematic unity of reason can be achieved by
realising that the science must be totally relativistic in nature.
Everything has appeared to be so complex and intractable because we have
become so accustomed to expressing our scientific reasoning in non
relativistic terms.
I must now try to round this off. I cannot really go much further as I
would need to regurgitate the several hundred pages on this subject in a
book Im hoping to finish this Easter entitled "Totality Theory: One
system, One system per System".  The logical aspects of the theory are
based on Stoic logic. The inspiration comes from my work in designing
and implementing multi-paradigm computer languages and Operating
Systems. The mathematics is based on stuff like, what is called
generalised hypercomplex number theory. The application of the Theory is
to explaining the structure of the genetic code, particle physics and
quantum mechanics. Weird stuff.
In the system there is a place for doubt, but as I say, I havent
published any of this stuff yet. Im rather excited about it all as Ive
been working on it for twenty years or so and it has gelled finally only
over the last twleve months.


Doug Moore


   --------------------------------------------------
       Douglas Huntington Moore (doug@latcs1.lat.oz.au)

                          GO STOIC

         and avoid the entrapment of abstraction
      --the source of most evil in the world today.
   --------------------------------------------------
