h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Towards a Critical Rational Fideism, or When a Rose is Not Not a Rose - A14480804
Author: Pilgrim4Truth - U5734655

The example I give is a tongue in cheek one from the trivalent logic of jurisprudence, but other examples can be provided, e.g., Atheism-Agnosticism-Theism. The key point being the rejection of the logical exclusion of the middle. Worthy of some thoughtful discussion I believe.

I'm sorry, but a bear of very small brain like myself doesn't understand a word of this.

This might make more sense:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

lol! I liked the PoMo nonsense generator link.

The key idea here is that looking at "life, the universe & everything" only from a true-false (bivalent perspective) is too narrow. Law courts don't work that way, and much else of human judgement does not either. Yet people want to prove others wrong and themselves right all the time. To me that kind of thinking also generates a lot of nonsense.

Um... I really don't understand what this Entry is getting at so I'd say that this isn't suitable for the Edited Guide (see Writing-Guidelines for more info).

Have you ever driven up to a T junction where one back seat "advisor" says turn left and another says turn right, and its a 50:50 decision in your mind so to speak? Sometimes the best course of action is to simply park the car and ask for directions.

Not everything in real life is an "either-or" decision. But much of our logic and philosophical systems are built that way. Polyvalent logic systems look at multiple possible "end-states", e.g., Innocent, Not Proven, Guilty. Have you every thought why a Jury is composed of 12 jurors?. Should guilt require, 7/12 (simple majority), 9/12 (two thirds majority) or Unanimous votes? It may seem academic to you now, but it an issue of life and death for some.

There is value in trying to wrestle with these issues to ensure we do justice to the reality of our human condition.

But the way you write this is incomprehensible, you permanently refer to people I for one have never heard of, you don't explain what Fideism is ( although I know it comes from Latin 'fides, fidei', which would probably best be translated as 'loyal'), and so on.

If you want to say the world is shades of grey rather than black-and-white why not just say that? You wouldn't call a spade a hand-held earth-moving impliment, would you?

The biggest problem is that (as B'elana says) your writing is largely incomprehensible.

Fideism - means Faith based. Two of the h2g2 Guide references I made gave in the text link to a) "Critical Rationalism" and the other to Douglas Adams joke abour b) "Bable Fish". Both reference this issue of the balancing of faith with reason.

I am assuming the people you are mentioning that you have never heard off are my references to Wittgenstein (Philosopher), Heisenberg (Physicist), Godel (Logician), Gould (Biologist) and Dummett (Philiosopher). These chaps are very well known in their respective fields.

Wittgenstein was a beery swine...

I've heard of the first three, but that doesn't mean that I'm familiar with their theories. Part of the problem is, that you're assuming too much. Linking to something doesn't explain anything, apart from the fact that you link to two unedited guide entries which isn't allowed ( read the guidelines), hence those links would be removed if ever this was to be edited. Any guide entry should be comprehensible without linking to anything, not everybody can be bothered to click on any links provided, they're just meant as an additional information for somebody who is interested in reading more. If you're not willing to write an entry who is comprehensible for people who aren't philosophers or already familiar with your theories, I wonder why you bothered to write it at all.

You're thinking of Monty Python. I think I'll have a beer - lots of critics out there right now!

Well perhaps it needs to be edited, taking out references is easy (I can remove the Bable fish one - a shame though as that's associated with Doug Adams). Reducing the philosophical tone is easy enough also. However I think one of the references is in the Guide, i.e., The Critical rationalism one can be found in Top / 3. Everything / Deep Thought /

Notwithstanding edits though... the key point, which I thought worthwhile sharing (and still do) - is that as humans we seem to be caught up so much in a Binary 0,1 type of logical discourse. We can be Faith based or Rational based but not both - that is a unsatisfying position for me, and for many others I suspect

It's a personal theory, though, isn't it? And these have no place in the EG. Besides, as has been pointed out, isn't this a rather circuitous way of pointing out the bleeding obvious?

Well I've read what you've said and I still don't understand your entry. As FM said, it plainly isn't going to be selected for the Edited Guide in its current format, so I suggest the following:

1. Read the Writing-Guidelines. It's worth it - they're very easy to understand. Read some of the examples in there, too.
2. Decide how you want to present your subject, based on verifiable facts rather than your theories.
3. Rewrite so that any fule can understand it.
4. Resubmit.

Whaddyareckon?

I recckon that it's irretrievable because of the fact it's a personal theory, that the guy who submitted this knew exactly what he was doing anyway, that it's an overwrought and deliberately obfuscatory exposition of a rather trite philosophical point and we shouldn't bother giving him any more encouragement.

Yep. FM has hit the nail on the head there.

Critical Rationalism is hardly a personal theory, it a something that Prof Ian Barbour developed following from Sir Karl Raimund Popper, hardly soft references in the History and Philosophy of Science.

The polyvalent logic aspects are also well established.

To be honest it seems you have an agenda in your criticism. Maybe it offends your sensibilities to have Faith Integrated with Reason.

'To be honest it seems you have an agenda in your criticism.'

Yes, I do have an agenda. I would like to see well-written Entries on interesting subjects in the Edited Guide; work that normal folks like me can read and understand, get inspired by, learn something new and perhaps be so excited by that they tell people about it. What you have submitted, I'm afraid, fits none of those criteria.