RE: virus: The One or the Many? (was: META)

Gifford, Nate F (
Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:31:00 -0500

Brett Lane Robertson wrote
>Robin wrote
>>No. If you have faith that you're right, you're not
>>opening to learning more. (Robin)


>Quite the contrary, the joy of discovery is the reward one has
when one's
>faith in an outcome is confirmed (or perhaps when one's doubt
>overcome...but I think that even in "general" terms faith is in
>with doubt and that faith is the preferable choice between the

Spoken like a true believer Brett. So the scientific method is
kind of inwardly directed ... what do I have faith in? How can I prove
it? Some might say that this does fall on the doubt side of the coin
... so what do you do when you have faith in something but can't come up
with a reasonable experiment? Not to mention all your other faith
groupies who think faith is enough ... just ask The Reverend Fallwell.

>As to how one "knows" if one is right (if one uses an
>argument)...logic and reason--as opposed to external
confirmation as in the
>case of doubting oneself...and doubting *onself* is what we are
>about, or what YOU are talking about if you say that a person
>doubt so that he is humble and so that he must seek external
>(and the external can neither confirm nor negate "self"...If 2
out of 3
>doctors say so, does that make it right either?)

On Sixty Minutes last night they had a wonderful meme-filled
segment on the Marcus Garvey school in Washington DC. A reporter went
to the Marcus Garvey school on a "fact finding" mission and got her butt
kicked. The people attending the school argue there is some white
conspiracy to put down the principle. I argue that the reality is: The
reporter is probably a snot who deserved to get her butt kicked ...
wouldn't you love to have the video of Dan Rather getting his butt
kicked while the punks ask "what is the ???, Kevin?" From the defense
of the principal it sounds like there is a boondoggle going on at the
school, and they have succeeded in keeping it covered up. This ties
into your points above that everyone in the case was sure they were
right ... and in my mind they were all wrong .... but for reasons
outside the realm of the case.

>I think you are talking about the human quality of "deference".
Yes, we
>should defer what it is we don't know. And no, we should not
have faith in
>something which is not certain.
Certainty is an inductive argument .... right?

> But we should--on the other hand-only doubt that which is not
true..."doubt" is therefore a >word which describes only un-truth; and
we should doubt doubt.