rationalskepticism.org

Fenrir wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

zoon wrote:The nearest thing to an overarching principle available at the moment does seem to be the likelihood that the material world, including human brains, can be entirely described in terms of the mathematical laws of physics and chemistry.

But this "principle" is false, so what would be the point of holding it?

How is this "principal" false?

Please be specific.

I hope it's not the old "no equation can expwain wuv" tripe.

I think what ughaibu is trying to say is that we cannot be certain this 'principal' is true. We have no reason to believe that it isn't, and that is enough for most level-headed persons. Perhaps ughaibu would like to cite some evidence that more than the material and physical is necessary to explain, for example, ethical sensibilities. Some people are still spooked by Cartesianism, and get themselves all confused when they start thinking that they're thinking, even (and maybe especially) when that thinking is woefully ineffective at anything more strenuous than thinking that it's thinking.

What I continue to try to figure out upon receiving the sort of perspective that ughaibu (and so many others) have tried to offer regarding 'certain knowledge' is the point of recognizing that we don't have certain knowledge, as opposed to waiting patiently to be shown that something is not true. The warning sign in zoon's eager (and so persistent) generalization is only the echo of religious certainty. When zoon tries to answer the question about why we have 'principles', there is an additional rush to note that our ethical sensibiities are a result of living as social animals. There's no reason to believe that this isn't true, either, but again, simply reciting it is an echo of reaching for an overarching 'principal' to match up against the eternal verities of religion.

How could a person not working a little too hard to escape a former state of religious certainty actually worry very much about the risks of seeking certain knowledge and making categorical statements? It's not an issue for someone who never dealt in received certainties, unless some we think people under stress seek these comforting certainties in any event. The sort of data we can obtain from the social 'sciences' is never enough to prove anything, but it is generally enough to say that we have no reason to believe it isn't true, until someone with an opposing view comes up with her own 'data' set.