I agree with most of what you wrote. But we do use different evidence systems in different areas of life. Your love example is a good one. Believing in love with no evidence causes relationship problems, doesn't it? We may use different evidence for the existence of love, but we do pay attention to its evidence, or lack of it. At least we do the second or third time around!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > Jyotish falls into that area as well. And while we're at it, let's > > > test yagyas too! I think I know what the results will show. > > > > > > >I know some people who have spent thousands on Yagyas. Guess > > who they blame when they don't work? Themselves! This stuff has torn > > the movement apart as people grow older and get sick of the wild > > claims and never-ending money schemes. It still is facinating isn't it? > > > > So it is not rational to believe things for which there is no proof. > > You may think something is worth testing, but > > if there is no proof, reasonable people don't assert its truth. > > People who believe things that have already been proved > > false are afflicted with a loss of usual or normal mental clarity. > > > 1) "If there is no proof, reasonable people don't assert its truth." > > and > > 2) "So it is not rational to believe things for which there is no proof." > > are quite differet propositions. > > For example, regarding [good] jyotish and [good] yagyas, there is no > strong studies, aka proof for or against. Nothing proving or > disproving. Thus, per 1) reasonable people don't assert its truth. Nor > do they assert its falsity. > > However, as an individual, it is indeed quite rational at times, for > some things, to believe in things that have not been proved (repeated > peer-reviewed papers, general scientific concensus). Only a fool > would assert that love does not exist because it has no scientific proof. > > And if someone has repeated good experience with jyotish or yagyas, > its quite rational to believe that "they appear to be useful to me". > That does not constitute a proof for the world. And it does not > preclude cognitive errors and biases in the personal assessment. > > But we can't scientifically prove every thing we decide is "a good > thing". Otherwise we would never act. We all have to make decisions on > imperfect information. That is, some things are not proved via full > scientific process, but we can still hold the hypothesis that they are > probable. And be open to the hypothesis being found false. > > Going around with, and acting upon, a set of beliefs/hypotheses that > on may hold to individually be 50-95% probable, is quite rational. To > hold everything as invalid until scientifically proved, and to not act > on anything that is based on less than perfect information, aka > certainty, now THAT is irrational. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
