Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
> On Sep 25, 5:05 pm, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Here, I confess, I lack the preparation to provide you with
> the decisive answer you so richly deserve. Perhaps no one is.
> You *think* that the view you have from inside your mind is
> privileged and necessarily more accurate than that which could
> be inferred by other means.
Again, you guess. Badly. I know what and how I think. I'm far
from certain I'm correct, which is why I discuss it with others.
When I get reasonable data or argumentation, of course that changes
my worldview. Unfortunately, none has been forthcoming from you.
> Countless psychological studies have demonstrated that what
> people think they think is at best illusory and contradicted by
> the evidence that they themselves produce.
I'm aware of these holier-than-thou psych studies. They
confound thinking with actions and attitudes with knowledge.
> This reality should be frightening to any thoughtful person.
> Who knows what's going on in our brains? How *do* we know if
> we're sane, or if we're capable of rational thought or not?
Going Rimbaud on me?
>> Hooboy: N thinks Y . R thinks Y. Therefore R is N.
>> Can you not even recognize your own logical fallacies?
>>
> That, sir, as the lawyers would say, is a statement of opinion.
> You are like people whom I don't respect in a way that I
> recognize. That is my opinion, and it cannot be controverted.
Oh dear! Yes, of course it is your opinion and you are very
unlikely to be lying this time. But didn't you just accuse
me of only listening to my own thinking? Perhaps you were
looking in a mirror.
In any case, your opinion is unlikely to have much explanatory
power and you will find yourself perplexed and frustrated
when things do not work out as your [faulty] logic predicts.
> You are apparently aware of none of this, so you talk casually,
> as so many do, of being logical, as if anyone could ever shown
> to be. Even the meaning of a single statement eludes us, without
> trying to convert true statements into other true statements
> without a change in meaning or introducing error.
So what? I'm an engineer. I need practical tools, not perfect
ones. I'm well aware of the weaknesses of my tools. Logic works
until it doesn't. In your case, the examples are simple and
incontrovertible.
-- Robert
|
