|
Post by hollandr on Oct 4, 2008 0:07:54 GMT
In another thread the necessity for proof was raised and it caused me to wonder why proof is required.
I can see that proof of workability of theories can be important - for example if we want to send a human to Mars and bring her back. But that is only proof of workability not of proof of absolute truth.
And in criminal courts we have a standard of proof - beyond reasonable doubt. But that again is not absolute - merely that a reasonable jury member can only think of unreasonable alternate explanations. The definition of reasonable is not obvious - unless it is that the human has beliefs and behaviors consistent with social norms.
And in civil courts proof is on the balance of probabilities. So theoretically 49% doubt may be ignored in imposing penalties.
It seems to me that a person with strong beliefs that satisfy them is going to demand a very strong proof before changing belief. Even then there may be a wish to be faithful to the previous generation and to traditional beliefs. Further, if the beliefs (and actions) of a lifetime are later seen as wrongly based this can be a problem for self-esteem. In that case I am not sure that proof is actually relevant.
On the other hand a person who does not have particularly strong beliefs about a particular area might be more tolerant of ideas that are inconsistent
`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'
So I wonder if exploring the hidden mysteries of nature and science is not more about playing with ideas and seeing if they cast interesting lights. That stage might lead to formulation of hypotheses for testing - assuming we know enough to make an effective test.
While I might leave proof to the next generation, I expect others will have their own paths
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Oct 4, 2008 0:20:07 GMT
Bro. Russell, I don't require proof so much as common sense. Mind you, I've seen some mighty strange things in my time, stuff that would turn you white. I'm not afraid to own up to any of it.
But all of it has to pass my boxers-or-briefs test. What reasonable being, on whatever plane, goes around doing <insert weird event here>. IMMHO, there has to be a logical reason why or no being, where ever they hail from, would do it.
I've noticed that when I encounter folks who get into the way-out-there whoo-whoo that when I administer the boxers-or-briefs test, some of them will speak intelligently with me and will engage me. I learn a great deal from them. But those who dismiss me by saying I'm just not open to the energies or some such thing. Puh. If they knew me better . . . Their response tells me they aren't where they claim to be, not really.
So you can imagine which group I stick with. And which group I leave to themselves.
Anyway, it's not proof folks like me look for. Just common sense. Truly, it can't be too much to ask.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Oct 4, 2008 0:26:06 GMT
>Just common sense.
Common sense is not so commonplace but the nature and origin of common sense might be best left to another thread.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 4, 2008 1:05:08 GMT
Proof aids one in the practice of viveka, roughly meaning "appropriate discrimination" (as between the real and the unreal), said in some traditions to be the first step on the path of wisdom (or common sense).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 4, 2008 1:40:37 GMT
`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.' Mind you, the very rational Charles Dodson was using the Queen's character to illustrate nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Oct 4, 2008 2:02:32 GMT
>Mind you, the very rational Charles Dodson was using the Queen's character to illustrate nonsense.
That is not so obvious
"Other famous members of the Golden Dawn can also be tied to cannabis use. British poet WB Yeats experimented with marijuana as an aid in the development of psychic powers, and the writer Lewis Carroll incorporated a cannabis-puffing caterpillar and a magical mushroom in his famous Alice in Wonderland. "
"Another writer who dabbled in magic was Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson). He had a strong interest in spiritualism and psychical research and stated that not all the phenomena could be explained by trickery. He was one of the charter members of the Society for Psychical Research. "
“Carroll chose to sing a new song. Instead of dogmatic liturgy, he sang the theosophist’s intellectual hymn to Love and preached from carefully crafted allegory instead of from a pulpit.”
"Here for instance ..... child is named Alice, a Greek word meaning truth, .......... The first chapter reveals the sacramental factor pictured by the bottle of liquid or the element of wine with description of its flavor and the little cake or the element of bread."
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Oct 4, 2008 2:17:00 GMT
>Proof aids one in the practice of viveka, roughly meaning "appropriate discrimination" (as between the real and the unreal)
Years ago I used to review government departments for effectiveness and efficiency. I used to go in search of evidence to support an hypothesis and would often find excellent evidence. But too often it turned out that the evidence was proof of something entirely different that had not occurred to me.
>the first step on the path of wisdom (or common sense).
Perhaps we do need a thread on the nature of commonsense
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 4, 2008 3:02:17 GMT
>Mind you, the very rational Charles Dodson was using the Queen's character to illustrate nonsense.
That is not so obvious Dodson's eponymous "Alice" (meaning, "of noble kind") was Alice Liddell and evidently, like me, Dodson saw no contradiction between mysticism and rationality but rather, a necessary grounding for the work.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Oct 4, 2008 3:02:39 GMT
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 4, 2008 3:04:06 GMT
Perhaps we do need a thread on the nature of commonsense I suggest trying to separate commonsense from the question of proof is not wise.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Oct 4, 2008 3:09:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Oct 4, 2008 3:12:04 GMT
>I suggest trying to separate commonsense from the question of proof is not wise.
That rather prejudges the nature of commonsense
For example, at one time it was common belief that the world was flat. Was that commonsense?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 4, 2008 3:24:32 GMT
>I suggest trying to separate commonsense from the question of proof is not wise.
That rather prejudges the nature of commonsense
For example, at one time it was common belief that the world was flat. Was that commonsense? Commonsense with respect to particulars can indeed be mistaken, but it is useful to consider "common-sense" in contrast to "nonsense." Similarly, I remember reading about elegance in boat design, words to the effect that, while a boat may be elegant but still flawed, if inelegant it was certain to be flawed.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 4, 2008 3:37:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Oct 4, 2008 3:47:07 GMT
>please consider the quote in context.
Do you refer to the age of the queen or her disappearance and/or transformation into a sheep?
"the oddest part of it all was that, whenever she looked hard at any shelf, to make out exactly what it had on it, that particular shelf was always quite, empty,"
That seems a very nice allegory - but for what - human knowledge?
Perhaps it is time to read Carroll again
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 4, 2008 3:51:10 GMT
That seems a very nice allegory - but for what - human knowledge? For delightful nonsense: For which Dodson is rightly renowned.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 4, 2008 7:33:47 GMT
"Boxers or Briefs Test" ?
If it is of any use to you Karen I am a Briefs man through and through. I totally detest Boxers (and you know how intensely I can detest things), and would not be seen dead wearing them! Indeed a few years ago someone gave me a pack of Boxers as a present. Of course I didn't hurt their feelings and accepted them but never wore them instead using them as wiping up clothes to clean my bike, wipe the floor etc, etc, a fitting use for such uncomfortable garments in my opinion.
No, give me a nice snug pair of Briefs such as Speedos any day for comfort and support.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Oct 4, 2008 14:04:23 GMT
No, give me a nice snug pair of Briefs such as Speedos any day for comfort and support. I am struggling to come to terms of a vision of you in Speedos Steve!
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Oct 4, 2008 16:23:19 GMT
No, give me a nice snug pair of Briefs such as Speedos any day for comfort and support. I am struggling to come to terms of a vision of you in Speedos Steve! Good heavens, Chris. Have you nothing better to do with your time? ;D
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Oct 4, 2008 18:21:48 GMT
No, give me a nice snug pair of Briefs such as Speedos any day for comfort and support. I am struggling to come to terms of a vision of you in Speedos Steve! Does give new meaning to that cheek-squeezing Bro. Ma'at and I talked about the other day My boxers-vs-briefs test is pretty simple. For instance, let's say a good bud of mine started talking to me about a tall bunny that visits his place on a regular basis, tidies up things and drops off loads of scotch (the good stuff). He thinks it's the result of good Karma and the Universe is rewarding him. He's serious I'm liable to ask things like: - Where does the bunny get the scotch? - Does the bunny get a stipend for it? From who? If not, does s/he work two shifts to afford it? - Why does the bunny do this? Is it your good Karma or his/her bad Karma? - What does the bunny do in his/her off time? - Does the bunny have a family? - Does the bunny watch television? - Does the bunny do his/her own laundry? - Does the bunny wear boxers or briefs? Sometimes I ask that question first but it usually makes it's way in there. There are other questions as well but you get the ideas. Now, if my bud takes my questions seriously and offers answers (even if those answers are "I don't know") then I'm quite liable to take him seriously. If he just rolls his eyes and tells me I'm just not open to the lofty higher powers like he is, then I'll just leave it there, fully knowing he's not where he thinks he is but content to leave him there. I'm not interested in busting anyone's bubble. I am interested in the truth. That's my measure of whoo-whoo. There's whoo-whoo I need to take seriously and there's whoo-whoo I can ignore. I much prefer the former
|
|