>
>Relatif Tuinn wrote to Nick Douglas about Brains in vats
 RT> What you have just stated is your personal philosophy. Strictly
 RT> speaking that is not what philosophy is about. The words "I believe"
 RT> should never be used. Philosophy is a study of the logical principles
 RT> that underpin any belief system and whether there is any validity or
 RT> consistency in those beliefs and how those beliefs are reached. 
 RT> So, ideally, you should be telling us exactly why you believe what you
 RT> do, and what led you to believe what you do in a logical fashion
 RT> without using the words "I believe" or equivalent. ie. philosophy
 RT> isn't about conjecture. 
 RT> Relatif Tuinn
 I believe you are wrong to say that in philosophy, one cannot say
 "I believe" - because that is very much like saying, "in Forensics Lab
 you must not use your lungs to breath, because that's not what
 Forensics is all about."
 
 Whether or not belief systems are consistent or valid, is not in the
 purview of the external observer.  And if it ever was, then who gave
 the external observer the right to dispatch any belief system for 
 someone else?  
 
 A belief system, first of all, does not have to be either consistent,
 nor valid, before it can be logically called a belief system.  And it
 certainly does not have to be these things for people to believe the
 attributes of that system.  In fact, this philosophy was first proposed,
 not by a philosopher - but by a mathemetician, Godel, whose Incompleteness
 Theorem was mathematically proved.  It states in short: for any formal 
 system, any consistency in that formal system cannot be proved of itself.
 He gave a simple example: "This sentence is false."  Demonstrating that
 the sentence was grammatically correct, and that was as far as anyone 
 could go as far as proving the validity, or consistency, of the statement. 
 The determining factor which decided the sentence was truthful or not, 
 lay solely upon the individual who judged it accordingly, one way or 
 the other, and not on any external basis whatsoever.  In fact, because
 this formal system (in this case a sentence) is not able to prove itself
 as either true or false.  Therefore, no belief system, since it is also
 a formal system, is not able to prove itself as either consistent OR
 inconsistent; and since a believer in that system has no external
 perspective, their believe in that system is _valid_ and _consistent_
 to _them_.  And that's why "I believe" is allowable in a philosophical
 discussion.
 
 
 
 
 
... For best results, place this line at bottom of message.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------