- Anything Else -

Read Korzybski

In Reply to: swish posted by Copenhagen on November 18, 1999 at 01:00:08:

: I have little problem with most of what you say, however I do not think we can confine our realm of knowledge only to the scientific. The sentence 'god does not exist' still has a truth value. It is just that scientific method does not allow it to be proven.

: That it cannot be proven scientifically does not in my opinion warrant a conclusion that we should thereby exclude it.

: Although it may lack the precision of scientific method and as such not be so certain, so conclusive we can still argue about the existance of god with the use of reason and the use of empirical data.

Fair enough, however, Korzybski (and semanticists in general, I suspect) would argue that the absence of evidence reduces the argument to one of advocacy. Given no test parameters that would answer the question one way or another, any debate on the subject is ultimately meaningless. IOW, we can be no more, no less productive "debating" the existence or non-existence of God than we can sitting around making monkey noises at each other. Since the net change in the universe resulting from such a discussion is pretty much zero, what's the point, really? Any debate over the reality of a non-empirical entity that has no measurable effect on the universe is going to devolve into "is not" "is too!" "is not!" "is too!" Depending on the sophistication of the participants, this will be more or less obvious, but at the core, that's all the debate can be. I'm not saying that we should never discuss the topic (in fact, I do a lot of things that have no apparent effects on the universe) but rather that the discussion has no hope of convincing advocates of either side to give up their beliefs. There is no supporting evidence for either side, so partisanship on either side seems to rely on a leap of faith. I am not feeling energetic enough to leap, that's all. I've often felt that the difference between "leaps of faith" and "jumping to conclusions" was small to non-existent. I'm not saying that you shouldn't make whatever assertions you wish, only that these assertions must, by nature, be based on zero evidence, and personally, I prefer to spend my time on more practical persuits. I admit that is only my personal taste though. If you wish to incorporate non-scientific sources of knowledge into your world-view, I wouldn't dream of critiquing you for that. Some of my favorite people do so all the time.
-Floyd

Follow Ups:

• Better yet, pronounce MDG November 22 1999 (4)
  • history, usenet, academia, etc. Floyd oh blah, blah, blah same bad pun I wrote last time November 23 1999 (3)
    • Experts, pointyheaded jargon, and @%!@*#!-ups. MDG November 23 1999 (2)
      • sorry, bro. Floyd pointy-heads anonymous Ack-uh-demia November 23 1999 (1)
        • Me mea culpa MDG November 24 1999 (0)
• Turning the tables Copenhagen November 19 1999 (3)
  • and stacking up the chairs Floyd Bos taurus coprolite propulsion technician People's Republic of West 40th Street November 19 1999 (2)
    • Turning out the lights Copenhagen November 22 1999 (1)
      • sitting around, BS-ing after the customers have all gone :-) Floyd Unmarked helicopter pilots' union, Local # 23 People's Republic of Deep Space November 23 1999 (0)