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

About that Mars probe: suppose it's a manned mission, and you're to be on it.

1) the man says 'We've tested all the components, the flight plan has been checked out by every physicist we can find, the rockets are ones we've used many times before without trouble, the computer is known to be reliable, the life support systems are the same as the ones that lasted twelve years on Mir, etc. etc.' Every scientific test suggests that you'll be OK.

2) the man says 'Well, last night I dreamed you'd landed safely on Mars.'

Which is more encouraging to hear?

About a third possibility beside true and false: how about 'Silly'? That would include things like 'This statement is false.'

"All I know is that I don't know, all I know is that I don't know nothing" : Op Ivy, Knowledge

First of all, ailcat, I think you missed my point. I think that science and religion should work together. It's probably not possible, because most who ascribe to one way of thinking denounce the other. But maybe I'm wrong, my astronomy teacher is a Creationist. I don't know much about what he believes yet, I just started the semester. So, maybe they can work together.

Second, everyone else, like I said eariler, I don't feel I'm educated enough yet to really participate in this discussion, but I get what everyone is saying.

Third, I thought we already had a word with many different meanings, 'dude'.

Last, Phobos, everytime someone mentions that saying, I always think of Op Ivy. But, it is true, you know.

I feel I ought to clear up a couple of points...

I don't say that dreams, etc. can never supply useful information. But a dream alone is never sufficient to draw a conclusion. It might provide a novel inspiration, an idea nobody's yet thought of. But until you test it and find evidence for or against, you don't know whether it's a benzene structure dream or a giant carnivorous carrot dream.

I also don't claim that empirical knowledge is infallible. I'd be a fool to do so. Of course scientific theories are shown to be incomplete, inaccurate or just downright wrong on a regular basis. And it's improved evidence that does it. Thus, when our astronomy became good enough to notice the anomalous motion of Mercury, the time had come for Newton's theory of gravity to be replaced by Einstein's.

As for logic, the idea that different logic applies in different cultures is ridiculous. For example, the value of Pi, derived by pure logic from the definition of a circle, is the same whether you're an ancient Greek, a Mayan or a Neanderthal. Just because the principles of logic were first formally laid down by the Greeks, doesn't mean that they only apply in Greece!

The third position, 'maybe', is usually found in conjunction with 'if' - so I suppose what the Greeks would do at this point is state what they meant more clearly and precisely, so that they could find out which side of the yes / no divide their problem fell. A 'maybe' isn't an answer, it's just another question.

And I admit that I don't know a very great deal about Zen. That's why I looked it up. I still think that a school of philosophy that considers logic to be irrelevant is going nowhere.

I claim, and will always continue to claim, that the only means of attaining knowledge is through logical argument and the gathering of evidence. And any argument to the contrary must surely itself use logical argument and evidence.

I can't say I disagree with you... intuitive and rational knowledge supplement and complement each other. The only thing I take issue with is that you presume that 'useful information' imparted by a dream must somehow be related to some sort of testable hypothesis in order to be ordained 'useful'. I think perhaps you are limiting yourself in this regard; a dream can certainly provide 'useful information' if it suggests via some symbolism or imagery a soloution to some personal emotional problem, for example. Your reverence for empiricism is commendable but not universally applicable, and that is where I think I differ from you.

All scientific theories are cognitive models of reality based on tested data. Such cognitive models can also be formed based on a vast array of other types of data, experiential, emotive, or what not; not every such model will be useful in defining some mathematical equation, but again different people tend to find things useful for different reasons. The mistake people make is in not recognizing the model for what it is.. an attempt to describe something knowable only by means of sensory input.

I'm not going to address your notions on culturally differentiated approaches to logic and reasoning. Eastern notions of reason are based on a different model than western notions; each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Your assertion that cultural notions with which you are not familiar or comfortable are therefore 'ridiculous' is again a belief based on a limited knowledge of the facts; all I can say is that you have not managed to convince me of the ridiculousness of taking them seriously. Maybe it's enough to have convinced yourself... that's probably best.

If the only means of attaining knowledge is through gathering evidence and using bivalent logic, then your knowledge must be seriously limited. By that method you cannot 'know' who you are, what you are doing, why you are doing it, or anything like that. You cannot 'know' if you love, hope, or feel. This is a narrow definition of knowledge.

This was getting long, so I decided to move into a new entry.

To sum up; what I am taking issue here (not offense, just issue ) is your notion that only rationally constructed, empirically tested theories can be used to build useful models of reality. Certainly such an approach is the best way to build a rocket or split an atom; but it is a worthless approach when trying to figure out, for example, if you should or shouldn't get a divorce from your wife. When such questions arise, a different way of 'knowing' and 'thinking' about things becomes more useful. If you were to say, approach a friend hoping to talk about feelings of depression that haunt you, would you want your friend to say 'your depression is illogical. nothing abuot your emotional state can be proven'?

Ah yes, in reply to your question about the imminent mars landing; I would probably feel most comfortable with both types of affirmation at once as it were... there is a human, feeling element inseperable from our intellects at any time of crisis. This is what religion (often unsuccessfully) purports to address. So again, I repeat; two ways of knowing, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Empiricism is a method of building models of physical interaction; when asked questions that fall outside of what is directly observable, it falls short, and the current questions surrounding such topics as quantum indeterminacy are a good example of such a limitation.

Odd place to be finding these deep thoughts, I know...

In Piers Anthony's "On a Pale Horse," he illustrates the different ways of knowing by using five matchsticks in different arrangements. Each arrangement represents a different (but equally valid) way of obtaining knowledge.

First, imagine them laid out horizontally, with one above the next, and so on. This represents how information can build up to a conclusion, and is sort of like detective work. Ex: I have a dead body. I have a bloody knife. I have a trail of bloody footprints leading out the door. I have overturned furniture. Therefore, I know that a struggle took place, the victim was murdered, and the killer fled the scene. Further matchsticks would lead me to possible identities of the killer, possible motives, etc.

Next, imagine the sticks lined up in a chain, end to end. This represents sequential reasoning. This is how Socratean (let's be fair here, Socrates taught it to Plato, who taught it to Aristotle) logic works. Ex: I can't find my keys. The aren't in my pocket. I usually keep them on the table, but they aren't there. They may have been moved, but they are not in the immediate area. I last used them to open my car's trunk. I find them in my car trunk lock.

Creative thinking can be best represented by arranging them in a five pointed star. It can go anywhere, from any point to any other point. It also doesn't have to make any sense. The great thing about this one is that, after arriving someplace, the other previous forms of logic can be applied to it to see if it has any merit.

Intuitive thinking has the same benefits, but its mechanism is different. Piers Anthony didn't offer a model for this one, but I see it as tossing the sticks about in a random pattern. Or perhaps arranging them in a series, with missing links.

Next comes the image of the pentagon. It represents circuitous thinking, and is the only useless and harmful one of the entire
set. Religion is the greatest practitioner of this one. Ex: God exists, God created the earth, earth is incredibly complex, which proves it was created by a higher power, that power is God, God exists....

Except for the circular part, each form of knowing has its benefits and pitfalls. The problems come in when you know something from only one way. Looking at things from more than one perspective is the most reliable method for gaining knowledge. For instance, knowing by intuition can be powerful, but most instances, it is not enough. you have to check it out through more methodical means. But the methodical means (series and stacked) are too slow. You'll find that most modern advancements were generated though creative or intuitive logic, then painstakingly reworked through the other two.

My point behind all this is that there are many paths to knowledge, and dedicating yourself to one or the other is counterproductive. People who can only think in stacked logic are called "anal retentive," people who can only think in creative logic are called "flakes," andpeople who can only think in intuitive logic are called "insane."

My other point is: this argument is pointless.

o.k. shazz . i think we can have some fun.@

Yeah but I'm here to kill time, not cause there's a point to being here

Actually, it's funny you should mention that novel Gargleblaster, I just re-read it a couple of weeks ago because I was bored and too broke to afford a trip to the bookstore. I'm curious where Anthony lifted that notion from... obvious he was pretty fascinated by it because its inclusion in the text was sort of forced and didn't really help the plot much. Is he still writing?

Couple of last points to make before I abandon this thread (it's so long it chokes my pc just to load it now). First off, stop apologising for a 'lack of education' people. Jesus, I'm a janitor who dropped out of a creative writing program; unless you flunked high school, you know more than me I think most of us come here to have a discussion with laid-back folk, not to read dissertations by people with degrees.. the continual obsequious groveling seems a bit over the top.

And yah phobos, the debate probably is pointless and I'm sorry now I engaged it. I think what got me going was that you blundered into the conversation waving around loaded terminology like 'silly' 'foolish' 'mad' and 'ridiculous', which tends to speak volumes about your particular bias and willingness to compromise on this subject; I hate discussing things in those circumstances and I should'nt have allowed myself to be goaded. Let's call it a draw; hell we can call it a sound victory if you want. As of this point I'm not really inclined to see your point of view, but I'm willing to discuss it further in another thread if you want to drop by my page sometime or track me down in some other forum.

Look, I came here to have an argument...

No, you didn't...

Fair enough; no amount of rational analysis will ever explain how a woman's mind works Nor will it explain what drives people to argue the subject at length.

What I was calling mad was the notion that, e.g. the guy convinced he can fly actually can fly, or that objective truth is culturally determined, or the idea of doing physics by dream. A ball will drop, regardless of your culture or your opinion on the matter.
Go right ahead and use dreams, trips, whatever, for psychological investigation, though.

If you will look back through your entries, you will find that you are the only one who thinks that "a guy who thinks he can fly..." is relevant.

Phew - I read the whole thread...

I had a response for the "good vs. evil" part, but can't be bothered looking for it again, so I'll just drop it here, out-of-context...

A question I have been known to ask Christian evangelists:
"In Genesis, it states that God saw what he created, and that it was *very* good. Most editions of the Bible put some form of emphasis on the 'very', because it was phrased extremely emphatically in the original language. This is before the fall of Lucifer, Garden of Eden etc., i.e. before the introduction of the concept of 'evil'. So, if evil did not exist at this time, how could there be differing degrees of 'good'?"

As they will generally have spent the preceding few minutes assuring me of the absolute physical truth and accuracy of the Genesis account*, I find this usually causes a degree of perturbation...

(*I live in a run-down area, and we seem to attract particularly eager evangelical types looking for potential converts... )

Person your self,
Listen to yourself! Anything that anyone tells you should be edited by that marvelous computer inside of your skull.
Just hypothetically, this rock we live on gave birth to every species that ever roamed her surface, perhaps we created god to ignore the biochemical circunstance of our birth.
Love is the law,
Mordek93

"...before the introduction of the concept of 'evil'. So, if evil did not exist at this time, how could there be differing degrees of 'good'?"
What makes you think that the concepts of good and evil were "created" after the world? In some theologies, particularly mine, good and evil have always existed and will always in the future. God didn't "create" evil... why would he?

balance,perhaps.

Well, in the theology I was discussing, many sects will say that evil entered the world with the fall of Lucifer; that until that point the world was perfect and without evil. I didn't actually say I thought evil was created, merely that some Christians do.

I don't recall any mention of a Satan in the Old Testament...even in Genesis, where it is common belief Eve was led astray by him, you look and find only a common garter snake, albeit one with the power of speech.

True, Mormon scripture says "There must needs be opposition in all things"...

The word "Satan" is located twice in the Old Testament: 1 Chronicles 21:1, and Job 1:6. The word "Lucifer" is mentioned once: Isaiah 14:12. The word "Devil" is in there three times: Leviticus 17:17, Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalms 106:37. Still, they don't say much about him for a 1184 page book.

One must alway keep in mind that the Old Testament was completely rewritten by the same medieval monks who thought that selling chicken bones to the masses as the finger bones of Christ was a good way to make the Church rich. They would have loved infomercials!
Love is the law,
Mordek93
By the way, it is good to hear from you again, Twophlag!

Who knows what it actually said in the first place, all we have now are revisions of revisions of translations............