Re: Science vs. Theology

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Wed Apr 13 2005 - 15:56:37 EDT

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:05:42 -0400 "Don Perrett"
<donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org> writes:
> Hi Brent,
  A truth by very definition is actual and
> real, and
> thus needs no proof. The concept of science is to understand the
> means,
> process and sometimes purpose of a truth.

Don,
I have no idea where you got the notion that truth needs no proof,
especially when your next sentence indicates that you are speaking of
truths. As a logician, I have proved no end of logical or necessary
truths and, as a philosopher, defended some intuitive truths. Even /ipse
dixit/ is a kind of proof, though usually problematic. We take direct
experience as fundamental, but even there we have to show--usually by
implicit assumption--that the experience is not the result of
hallucination or optical illusion or, as with seeing stars, something
quite other than sensation. Without some sort of proof, what is left
approximates the well-known "I'm right, and if you don't think I'm right,
just ask me and I'll tell you how right I am."

I think again of Peirce's comment that everyone will agree that human
beings are fallible, but always make exception of themselves in THIS
instance.
Dave
Received on Wed Apr 13 16:02:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 13 2005 - 16:02:07 EDT