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