From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!fauern!unido!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga Mon Mar  9 18:33:44 EST 1992
Article 4127 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!fauern!unido!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga
>From: c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Determinism precludes truth?
Keywords: TRUTH truth
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.231536.14857@ida.liu.se>
Date: 27 Feb 92 23:15:36 GMT
References: <1992Feb20.231024.5959@norton.com> <1992Feb21.092037.6074@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb23.223736.16566@ida.liu.se> <1992Feb24.223140.28623@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Sender: news@ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Lines: 57

onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:

>In article <1992Feb23.223736.16566@ida.liu.se> c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge) writes:

>>[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.

Come now! War is not part of the rationalist method. It is fundamentally
the irrationalist recourse. When true rationalists disagree, they argue,
trying to convince one another. When true religionists disagree, they
hurl anathema at one another.

>>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.)

Yes, you do. How many people have been burned at the stake as a part
of rationalist debate?

>  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."

As someone else has posted; this is no part of Popper. His is 
the criterion of refutability. Please attack the correct
philosophy.


--
/-------------------------+-------- DISCLAIMER ---------\
| Pontus Gagge            | The views expressed herein  |
| University of Link|ping | are compromises between my  |
|                         | mental subpersonae, and may |
| c89ponga@und.ida.liu.se | be held by none of them.    |
\-------------------------+-----------------------------/


