On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:47:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I am not so certain about that.
> 
> I'm sorry.

Don't be, it's part of my belief system, and I'm completely at peace with 
not being certain about some things.

>>> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
>>> the justification, you just have a "good guess".
>> 
>> Justification comes in different ways for different people.  There are
>> some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.
> 
> Certainly. But there are certainly some situations in which it's easy to
> say "that's justified" and some in which it's easy to say "that's not
> justified."  Of course there will be boundary cases as people argue over
> whether whatever evidence is presented is sufficient justification.

Exactly my point.  People "of faith" (as you put it, I like that 
phrasing) have a certain certainty in the way that the universe works.  
It may not match reality at all, or it may partially mesh with reality, 
or it may coexist peacefully with reality.  There is a lot of uncertainty 
in the universe, and some people *need* that certainty of knowledge that 
there's something bigger out there.  That's fine with me; I don't 
necessarily need that sort of certainty that we're here for a purpose or 
whatever.

>> I can instinctively know
>> that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also
>> prove that scientifically.  That doesn't invalidate the instinctive
>> knowledge.
> 
> That's actually learned knowledge. Sorry.

I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual 
cues.  I just knew it.  But the actual example isn't really the point, 
the point is that there are things that we instinctively know (you used 
hunger, that's a good one, or thirst).

Jim

Post a reply to this message