On Jan 8, 12:15=A0pm, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Succinct and insightful ....
The esteemed netter, brilliantly, put his finger on the dif-
ference science and religion. Which is item #2. In science,
it is "generalization". =A0Whereas, in religion, it is "God's
omnipotence and intervention". That's wonderful. What, pray
(pun, is not intended) tell, what, exactly is the nature of
"generalization"?
Does it not require a leap of faith? ....
ltlee:
No. Generalization is not faith based.
Generalizations are the results of repeated observations and
they are subjected to tests, ready to be discredited all the time. In
contrast, faith is the foundation of what we humans cannot see.
Most fascinating ....
The riddle, deepens. Does not "discredited" entail making an
assumption about something that "we humans cannot see", that
subsequently turned out to be wrong?
And, why repeatedly make "generalizations" that are wrong?
Last but not least, how does one go from "repeated observat-
ions" to "generations"? =A0Perhaps an explanation is in order:
Just because the ice cube in front of the esteemed netter is
cold, and that the ice cube in this humble netter's glass is
cold doesn't entitle one to make the generalization that all
ice cubes are cold. Unless there is something that we humans
cannot see nor understand is at work to make that true.
Repeated observations to generalization through the process of
induction.
Empirically speaking, the generalization "ice cube is cold" is
considered
valid as long as we find no contradiction. Philosophically, the issue
is more
problematic. It is true that there is still no theory of projection,
from sample
to population, with which one can distinghish whether certain
inference is
inductively valid.
What, the inquiring mind begs to know, is the nature of that
unknowable? Pagan call that magic; while deist, hand of Pro-
vidence. Is there not a name for that in science? If so, why
is "it" not a deity nor divine?
A matter of common sense. Neither deity or divine is needed to be
invoked.
If we accept everything as clear, there is nothing to explain. If we
refuse to accept anything as clear, no explanation is possible.
Where to draw the line between clear and unclear reflects how good
one can project from his own experience to the populaton's collective
experience. In another word, how common is one's common sense.
An illustration with the "ice cube is cold" problem. If someone shows
an ice cube which temperature is 10 degree above normal. He demands
an explanation why this ice cube is not cold. People will accept his
demand. Something does need to be explained. On the other hand, if
one shows an ice cube which temperature is about normal. His demand
will generate no response. It is clear that "ice cube is cold" and
this ice
cube is cold.
That "it" is quite intriguing .... :)
However, intriguing. It is a human thing. Of course, one can choose
to call the collective common sense in the sense that nothing we can
know is beyond this collective common sense. But doing so is
explaining
god away.
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
La Brisas/Valle de Guadalupe, Baja California, Mexico.
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to
.
