Re: virus: Axioms versus falsification of theories

Eric Boyd (6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca)
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:40:09 -0500


David McF wrote:

> Eric Boyd wrote:
> >"Faith" may be a
> >cardinal Virus sin, but itís necessary.
>
> Are you sure you are using "faith" in the same sense as the Virus sin?
> Do you really believe scientific statements more than the evidence
> would dictate?

What evidence? My point is I don't have any for some of these new
subjects I'm learning about. I guess, technically, I don't have to
"believe" them... but I do have to do the homework. I gotta pass, after
all.

If you like, I'll yeild. I don't have to use "blind faith", as you seem
to define faith. But "Provisional Acceptance", based on what Paul
Prestopnik talked about ("partial verification"), and "authority" memes
from the Prof, is faith in my books.

Prof Tim wrote:
> Hmmm... is <faith> then the "original sin" of Virus? Is
> it the necessary act of transgression that casts one out
> of the garden and its innocence ("for they were naked and
> unafraid") and in the real world of complexity
> and choice? And the need for redemption?

"for we are all sinners at heart"... we all really do believe things
more than the evidence warrants. It human nature to trust; to believe.
(honestly ask yourself if there really is something called "provisionary
acceptance" in your heart. Can humans actually act on an idea without
believing in it?)

As for redemption, can we sacrifice books? I think the act of burning
books -- and the renunciation of their content -- signals our
willingness to abandon faith. I think we should start with "Virus of
the Mind".

After all, it's the biggest Virus of them all! :-)

ERiC

... I'm ready for the First Annual Virus Book Burning Party: got my
marshmallows and a stick. (and bring the snakes, Tim!)