At 10:53 pm 09/12/2005 -0500, Stephen wrote: > > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> thomas malloy wrote: >> >>> The exchange between Jed Rothwell and Bruce Wesley prompted me to >>> point out that no matter how persuasive you think your argument is, >>> the other person may dismiss it. Jed dismissed my argument about >>> spontaneous biogenesis too. >> >> >> Note that I dismissed these for different reasons, at different >> levels. I am sorry to be pedantic, but strictly speaking Pascal's >> "argument" does not even reach the level of being an argument. It was >> a logical fallacy: "appeal to the consequences of a belief." >> Spontaneous biogenesis is at least hypothetically possible I suppose >> (it is not a logical fallacy), but I think it is factually wrong. > > Like at least one other reader, I have no idea what you were getting at > with that sentence. I thought "spontaneous biogenesis" was mainstream > science these days (at least, if you're north of the Mason Dixon line). > >> The difference between a logical fallacy and an incorrect argument is >> like the difference between a physics equation with an algebraic >> error, and an equation which is mathematically correct but does >> describe reality. Strictly speaking, an equation with an algebraic >> error is not an "equation"; it does not equate. It fails to reach the >> level of being either right or wrong. >> >> Pascal's argument was also factually wrong because belief is not >> voluntary. > > You have asserted this but you certainly haven't proved it, and I don't > think you can, beyond asserting that it's self evident. I'm not at all > sure it's true. > > (In fact, it might be easier to start by tackling the issue of free will > (or lack thereof) than to take this one head-on.) > >> A person can be persuaded to believe one thing or another, > > Yes. And why should it not be possible for people to, consciously and > with intent, persuade _themselves_ of some particular belief or > collection of beliefs? > > It's not as simple as changing your socks, for sure, but there's a big > gap between "difficult" and "impossible". I think this one may lie in > between. > >> or deceived by propaganda, but he cannot by his own volition simply >> pick one belief and discard another. At least, in theory he cannot, >> but in real life people often appear to select a belief because it >> happens to be more convenient, profitable, popular or safe. > > And then they set about convincing themselves that it's true. In other > words, people intentionally change their own beliefs. > >> I suppose a woman might persuade herself she is truly in love with a >> man who happens to be a billionaire, even though she would not give >> him a second glance if he were poor. > > Time for an about-face here. > > Nice as it might be to have you provide an example to bolster my > argument, this one falls down: she's most likely not "persuading" > herself of anything in this case. You have implicitly dismissed the > possibility that money made the billionaire genuinely more attractive! > > What is "love"? It's something of extreme importance to the species and > evolution has worked hard to get it "right". In particular, you're a > lot more likely to fall in love with someone who has valuable > characteristics -- who is, in other words, attractive. It is totally > counter-survival to fall for someone who is himself or herself > mal-adapted! And, like it or not, worldly success is absolutely a part > of what determines how "successful" you are, and historically it had a > very direct and large impact how many progeny you left. > > It would be extremely surprising if many (or most) people did _not_ find > someone who is successful more attractive than someone who isn't. In > evolutionary terms, it makes no sense to be attracted to "the > underdog". In today's world, success is measured primarily by how much > money you have. So, if a woman is attracted to someone who's rich at > least in part _because_ he's rich, don't jump to the conclusion that > she's intentionally fooling herself just because she wants his money. > Rather, blame half a billion years of selection pressure guiding her to > select a mate who can provide the opportunity to have a large, well > cared for family.
I agree with Stephen's argument who has put it far more effectively than I could. For me, belief is not an emotional thing but a question of the will. I might choose to believe something and therefore act upon it even though my emotions may revolt against it. I long ago discovered that logic was a very poor instrument in matters of belief since logic proceeds from certain assumptions which are unprovable and there is a tendency to decide what one wants to believe and then pick those assumptions that justify that belief. I'll give you an example of this from my own career experience. When I was working in the Soil-Section of the Road Research Laboratory, I was asked by my director to make an economic analysis of the relative costs of soil stabilization with cement as compared with crushed stone for road construction. I found that one had to make a large number of assumptions about costs at the base of a logical pyramid which build up to the point at the top giving the final costs. With each assumption there was a band of costs which one was free to choose without being accused of being unreasonable. By biasing each assumption choice slightly in the direction which gave the required answer I was able to give my boss what I knew he wanted. The economic argument could not be refuted by picking on any individual assumption or group of assumptions and showing they were unreasonable cos they weren't. To take all the assumptions and bias them the other way would be as much work as was entailed in the first place and no one was going to do that. Ultimately what we believe is what we choose to believe and we show what we believe by our actions. For example, Jed obviously believes in Cold Fusion. Beliefs can't be justified logically and can't be refuted logically. Even in mathematics (and you can't get more logical than that) we have Godel's incompleteness theorem. As the great Doctor Johnson so wisely observed. Those two women will never agree. They are arguing from different premises. 8-) Cheers, Frank Grimer
