Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!thirdi!sarge From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge Message-ID: <68@thirdi.UUCP> Date: Sun, 26-Jul-87 03:05:20 EDT Article-I.D.: thirdi.68 Posted: Sun Jul 26 03:05:20 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jul-87 20:47:42 EDT References: <58@thirdi.UUCP> <2401@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <66@thirdi.UUCP> <1537@botter.cs.vu.nl> Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Distribution: world Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology Lines: 36 Keywords: truth knowledge belief absolutes certainty Summary: Belief is generally compelled, not chosen. In article <1537@botter.cs.vu.nl> hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand) writes: >Evidence certainly >contributes to belief, but it never determines the choice. >So if you want to communicate, you must also be willing to believe. I'm not sure that belief is really always a matter of choice. Certainly, one can inculcate belief in oneself by various means, such as autosuggestion, or Pascal's famous method of acting as if one believed, until one does believe. Christians have, of course, been highly motivated to believe in the divinity of Christ, as Pascal was, since believing is viewed as the route to personal salvation. And they have therefore sometimes been led to extraordinary measures to create belief in themselves (and in others). I'm sure that we all do this to some degree. However, apart from such deliberate and manipulative measures, I don't think belief is generally consciously chosen. Rather, it seems to be compelled (yet in a somehow non-forceful manner) as the result of a combination of evidence (perceptions) + certain underlying rules common to all, such as the rules of logic and certain empirical assumptions, + other forms of thought and rules of evidence that depend on education, culture, and habit. The notion of what truly constitutes compulsion in the area of thought is somewhat unclear (to me). Is logic a form of application of force? Does demonstration enforce agreement? Or should force be regarded as the application of pain and duress (or a threat of some kind)? My inclination is to apply the term to the latter. If anyone has views on the topic of what consititutes the use of force or coercion, I'd be interested to hear them. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge