From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Wed Feb 26 12:54:15 EST 1992
Article 3985 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Determinism precludes truth?
Keywords: TRUTH truth
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.223140.28623@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 22:31:40 GMT
References: <1992Feb20.231024.5959@norton.com> <1992Feb21.092037.6074@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb23.223736.16566@ida.liu.se>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 58

In article <1992Feb23.223736.16566@ida.liu.se> c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge) writes:
>onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Feb20.231024.5959@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
>>>markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>>> 
>>>> 1. Human beliefs are so various, not to say rococo, that it would seem hard
>>>> to maintain that the most useful beliefs also tend to be true.
>>>
>>>If the truth is so useless, why bother studying philosophy?  Or science?  Or 
>>>anything else?  Go study you Bible or your Koran and you'll do no worse under 
>>>your conclusions.  Would you not say that yours is an anti-intellectual
>>>attitude?
>
>[Omitted: Mr. Onstott's lengthy and somewhat incoherent irrationalist credo 
> defending religion and Milan Kundera(!), denouncing soullessness of science]
  Not denoucing science, but yes, defending religion and Milan Kundera(!)

>
>You are of course entitled to your opinions; however, this group is rather
>more inclined toward rational discussion (with the occasional vehement
>insult). I prefer rationalism (the critical variety) as it attempts to
>resolve questions by discussion and criticism; religion and other 
>irrationalist pastimes have no other ultimate recourse than violence,
>as history shows. Have you read Popper?
  This is not a necessarily true statement.  The more correct statement
is to say that when religion is attempted from a rationlist point of view
camps are formed(schools, dogmatics, doctrines, whatever) and these are the
creaters of wars using the tools created by the scientists using those rational
methods.  Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy!  The truth is hidden; I am tring to
reveal it.
>
>Although I surmise (being atheist, and (being young) a firm adherent of
>the ideals of the Enlightenment) that religion may induce noble sentiments;
>still, as a "method" for discerning truth, it is woefully lacking, and
>encourages unsound methods (I surely need not name them?).
  Since when has rationalism not encouraged unsound methods?  (I surely need
not name them either.)

  There you go again, making the same mistake.  What do you mean by
rationalist?  What is the methodology?  What do you mean by truth?
Verification thesis(as per Popper)?  Well that thesis itself is not
verifiable and thus untrue.  Read Martin Heidegger.  And give me a proof
for "Any statement which is true must be verifiable."

 BCnya,
   Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu

"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."

                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


