Re: <djuno> & how about <krici>? (Was Knowledge & Belief)

[Rob Zook <rzook@INFORMIX.COM>]

At 11:41 PM 12/31/97 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
>>Religion uses
>>reason as a tool just as science does. However, religion builds the
>>foundation of it's arguments on faith in the supernatural. Something
>>that cannot possibly ever "prove", the way a scientist can "prove" a
>>theorum. Remember the CompSci motto, GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out
>>(Please, don't take that as a comparison of religion as garbage).
>
>Scientists don't prove theorems. They attempt to disprove hypotheses by
>empirical means. The harvest of science consists of those hypotheses
>which are left standing after honest attempts to disprove them fail.
>Mathematicians and logicians prove theorems.

OK, I grant you not the best explanation of the scientific method.
Let me present my point another way. You seem to have implied that
Religion seemed irrational and Science rational. Religion seeks to
answer certain questions as does Science. Religion relies on faith in
holy writ or experience of supernatural beings to answer all questions.

Science relies on observation refined with instruments and rational
thinking. However, both use reason. Religion never tests the hypothesis
it forms like Science does. So all sorts of false to reality beliefs
can creep in since Religion does very little "reality-testing".

>>Other's disagree. Note that faith in
>>itself, does not make something unjustified. Science itself comes down
>>to faith; faith in ones thinking, faith in ones instruments, faith that
>>one has experiemented enough to prove the theorum (since one
>>necessarily stops before the infinite number of experiments needed to
>>absolutely prove a theorum).
>
>I do not agree with this view of what science is.

I never presumed to try and define what science "is", only how I
saw it. But my flawed explanation of the scientific method detracts
from my point.


>Experiments are not
>used to prove or disprove theorems. Experiments are used to test
>hypotheses. No faith is necessary. If one's thinking, instruments, or
>analysis is flawed, the process of science will eventually uncover the
>flaw, and correct it. Of course, you might be long dead when the flaw is
>discovered.

OK, while I accept your correction of my description of science, faith
does exist in science. Scientists still act as if a given theorem
which has stood the test of time "is" true, especially it's predictions
seem accurate. The faith part comes in when scientists keep acting
as if a theory is true when some later experiment seems to disprove it.
A given theory does not get replaced until those who keep the faith
die or retire (see Kuhn's book on the history of science).


>>As I said, some dispute about what "justified means, exists. However,
>>in epistemology one usually restricts the meaning of the word knowledge
>>to "justified true beliefs" where justified includes direct observation
>>_and_ logical arguments.
>
>Observation is subject to error. Ever seen a magic show?

Irrelevant. I was not making an assertion about "knowledge", but
presenting a standard encyclopedia-type description of what "justified"
refers to in the context of "knowledge" in epistemology.

I would hope that we can simply use djuno in the sense which the
gismu list on the web page seems to imply, the epistemological -
"justified true beliefs". That would include beliefs with a basis in
direct observation and logical argument.

Observation, even refined with instruments has flaws, as does reason
no matter how precise the logical tools. One can never ever get that
100% total certainty, in a finite amount of time. So, "absolute knowing"
cannot possibly ever exist, so trying to reserve the
word djuno for Absolute knowledge seems rather pointless.


Rob Z.
--------------------------------------------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx