virus: Telepathy / Consistency

Reed Konsler (
Sun, 25 Aug 1996 16:39:33 -0400

*****David McFadzean( Sat, 24 Aug 1996 18:36:50)
>Also, if the new theory is predicated on some postulated phenomenon that
>would be inconsistent with my >current set of beliefs, then (obviously) I
>have to discard some of my current beliefs to maintain >consistency. I
>don't mind doing that, but I do require strong evidence because I usually
>have good reasons >for holding the beliefs that I do.

Isn't it possible to hold two mutually inconsistent set of beliefs at the
same time and apply one or the other depending on which seems more to be
more accurate/useful at the time. I know that depending on exactly how one
defines belief someone engaged in such practice get labeled as "irrational"
or "inconsistent". I think, however, that people do this...if only because
the necessity of action places a limit on introspection and self-revision.

I actually don't want to argue in favor of believing in telepathy. I just
wonder if it's kosher to argue that an inconsistent theory must be adopted
on an "either / or" basis. Can't one adopt a sort of Victorian atttidue
and act like it will all work out for the best in the end? Can't one
accept mutually exclusive paradigms on a provisional basis?

Reed Konsler