[Vision2020] Re: Reply to Campbell & Book Recommendation

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Joe Campbell:

Thanks for your thoughtful and friendly replies!  

I would love to respond on the Vision2020 list in more detail, but I have not 
found the time or energy to give a decent response, and I don't want to offer 
a half hearted effort.

A. J. Ayer comes to mind as a philosopher who might be worth bringing into 
this discussion in regard to logical positivism, scientific method, and 
metaphysics and/or mysticism as forms of "knowledge," connecting this approach to the 
issues of the Philosophy of Mind as it impacts the problem of the knowledge of 
other minds (God's mind?).  And what about Neutral Monism from Bertrand 
Russell?  I find it odd that Russell's attempt to get around the 
Idealism/Materialism or Mind/Matter split receives such scant attention.

Frankly, I think Plantinga's thinking to be a brilliant, clever and inspired 
effort to prove a thesis that can't be "proved" without forms of deception and 
obscurantism that are rather easily exposed.

Anyway, maybe when I find more time or inspiration, I can respond on the list 
in more detail.  

Though many on Vision2020 find posts on complicated philosophy to be 
"inappropriate," I keep reminding people, everyone is a philosopher on theories of 
ethics and knowledge, whether they admit it or not, so you can either be a poor 
philosopher, or a good one, but no one can avoid being one.  And how someone 
answers the basic questions of ethics and knowledge that philosophy poses will 
impact the most important decisions in anyone's life.  Given the wisdom 
displayed by many of our political, religious and economic leaders, across the board, 
I think they reveal they are very poor philosophers!

Oh wait!  I forgot about those who think that ethics and knowledge is 
reducible to dollars and cents in the free marketplace!  If an ethical value or form 
of knowledge sells, it deserves to rule our lives.  They are winning the 
argument via the "might makes right" approach to ethics and knowledge, or perhaps 
the "popularity" approach to validating ethical theories and knowledge.  
History is written by the victors, as they say.  Who cares if you are a poor 
philosopher, if you are filthy rich and/or powerful, ruling those who follow your 
"wisdom?"

Consider, though, how those who seek to weaken the impact of scientific forms 
of knowledge on their favored theories of ethics and knowledge 
(fundamentalist thinking in Islam or Christianity or even many so called "New Age" 
religions, etc.), use the power of economic and technological means derived from 
scientific thinking to promote the very pet theories that science reveals are very 
questionable, like a God created universe that denies evolution of the human 
species.

A lot could be said about this development in modern life!

Ted Moffett

Joe wrote:

Thanks, Ted!

I misunderstood your original posting. Certainly below you are not confusing 
necessary and sufficient conditions, as I suggested previously. Sorry for the 
faulty charge!

Your point is (and probably was) that, say, evolution theory might contain 
propositions that an individual would be unwilling to accept because it “
contradict(s) their cherished assumptions or beliefs.” That doesn’t mean that 
evolution theory is not a scientific theory.

Good point!

What I should have said (and meant) was that if someone ACCEPTS a thesis and 
that thesis contains propositions that he or she is unwilling (not just 
unable!) to reject, no matter what empirical evidence comes his or her way, then it 
is not a scientific thesis.

My attempt here is to suggest that what distinguishes genuine scientific 
theses from others is that they are grounded in, and amenable to, empirical 
evidence. Of course this is true of other theses, too, which is why I offer it as a 
necessary condition (if something fails to satisfy the condition it is not 
science) not a sufficient one (if something satisfies the condition it is 
science). Moreover it is weaker than a logical positivist view of science, which 
holds that science is nothing but the logical consequence of empirical evidence. 
That view is too strong.

With regard to Moore’s book, I’m only familiar with the chapter on free 
will, which is one of the most influential pieces of philosophy that I have ever 
read. Note that there are many philosophy books on both lists on the website 
that you sent me, but they are very different philosophy books!

Joe Campbell


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051022/91b79390/attachment-0001.htm