alexey Posted November 23, 2013 Author Share Posted November 23, 2013 I still don't see how it helps. The squirrel has what is sometimes called animal-faith. The squirrel excepts what is given not only without doubt, but without even so much as a context where doubt would be possible. Yet, if we are to say that science has roots in the same kind of animal-faith, the acceptance of what is given or revealed through perception, have we shown science is in no way reliant on a kind of belief? It may be nonsensical to doubt that belief, but it is a belief nonetheless. I do not like using the word "belief" because it is not well defined in terms of brain states. However, in the context of Wittgenstein, I suppose it would be appropriate to say that some kind of animal-faith that can be called "belief" is required for humans to do science, or anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 Alexey, I believe you have just conceded my objection to the OP, if only in the context of Wittgenstein. Nice pull by the way. One of my favorite profs in grad school was a big fan of ol' Ludwig, having studied under some of his successors at Cambridge. I was glad to see you bring it up. Wittgenstein's "this is what we do" response to skepticism seems so simple, yet perhaps it is one of the best responses out there. PS You always quote my typos before I can fix them, which is bit embarrassing for me. I swear I know the difference between except and accept. Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 23, 2013 Author Share Posted November 23, 2013 Alexey, I believe you have just concede my objection to the OP, if only in the context of Wittgenstein. Nice pull by the way. One of my favorite profs in grad school was a big fan of ol' Ludwig, having studied under some of his successors at Cambridge. I was glad to see you bring it up. Wittgenstein's "this is what we do" response to skepticism seems so simple, yet perhaps it is one of the best responses out there. Sounds like we are in agreement! My biggest gripe with sloppy language (and I think this gripe is shared by many fellow skeptics) is when people conflate religious faith with animal-faith (looks like that's what we agreed to call it). I think it is really important to highlight that distinction. I doubt that many religious folks would want to equate their faith to a kind of faith that squirrels have Scientists, on the other hand, may be just fine with saying that they have animal-faith but not the other kind. Especially neuroscientists I'm out for the night, it's been a pleasure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.