Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Yes.
Ok.
As I suppose that you would like to be able to say something different as "maybe" for the existence of (almost) everything, let me suggest one different way of thinking.
I must rely on your good will here. Try to understand what I am saying, please.
Let me define (don't be afraid, no more weird definitions  ) the "perceived universe" as "all the things you perceive as existing". It includes the sun, the earth, the galaxy, you, me... all that you consider that it exists. Please realize that it may contain things that do not really exist, but we do not have con concentrate on that.
Let me define a "positive assertion", as one which, if considered true, adds things to the perceived universe. For example, "there is a cup on the table" is one. But "there is no cup on the table" is none, as it adds no new thing. It adds information, yes, but not a "thing". "There is a relation between the assassination of JFK and the increase of television devices in the USSR" is also a positive assertion - it includes a relation, which is good enough as "thing". "There is no relation between..." is not a positive assertion.
Please note that "there is no man who lacks a woman to love" is expressed in a negative way, but is actually a "positive assertion" because it includes facts in the perceived universe (characteristics on existing women and men).
Ok.
Now please let me define this rule: "Positive assertions are to be considered false until there is a reason to consider them true". Please accept this as a valid formulation of the "Principle of Parsimony" or "Skeptical Rule". It is not *very* exact but I hope it is good enough.
Now let us apply this new rule
* Unless there is a reason to think that no man lacks a woman to love, we have to consider that yes, there are men who have no woman to love.
* Unless there is a reason to think that there is a cup on the table, we have to consider that there is none.
* Unless there is a reason to think that there is a relation between the assassination of JFK and ... ok, enough.
Please note that:
* The rule does not say that we are SURE that the positive assertion is wrong. It only says that we consider it wrong, for the time being.
* The rule does not exclude that we may have, some day, a reason to think that the positive assertion is true. Then we will simply change our minds.
But, until then... there is no cup in the table.
Said as a temporal assertion. Truth until proven otherwise. Without pretending to be an absolute eternal truth.
Now see what happens when we consider Unoser again, according to this rule.
* "Unoser exists" is a positive assertion.
* There are no reasons to say, that Unoser exists. The definition makes *possible* that he exists, but is not a reason to affirm that it actually does.
* Therefore, according to our new rule, Unoser does not exist.
* Therefore, logically, you have a nose.
:)
What do you think about incorporating this rule to your way of thinking, to resolve the problem?
I can see what you're saying. As to the rule "Positive assertions are to be considered false until there is a reason to consider them true," I'm sure I could live with that as far as practical, day-to-day life is concerned. For all practical purposes, I operate under the assumption that the reality I perceive around me is real and that what I can't see or prove is disregarded (although never entirely so).
Some of it is dependent upon the circumstances of a situation. Simple assertions like "there is a cup on the table" can be easily verified or debunked simply by looking at the table and seeing if there is a cup there. It's hard to consider something as "true" or "false" in a vacuum, without investigating first.
I mostly agree with your view, "Said as a temporal assertion. Truth until proven otherwise. Without pretending to be an absolute eternal truth." As long as it doesn't purport to be the final word on the matter, then I can live with that. Otherwise there would be no progress or scientific discovery.
|
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 
Profile
Besides Anoser, Unnoser etc. how about inventing another character called SpanishMat who enjoys playing games of semantics to teach others who he deems less knowledgeable than himself and ASpanishMat who genuinely engages with the views of other members?
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread