pam69ur
 
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2007 10:49 pm
This book argues

Quote:

CONTRADICTION, OR INCONSISTENCY WITHIN A VIEW AS WELL AS MUTUAL CONTRADICTION, OR INCOMMENSURABLITY BETWEEN VIEWS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE VIEW OR BOTH VIEWS FROM BEING 'TRU
ABSURDITIES OR MEANINGLESSNESS
OR
IRRATIONALITY
IS NO HINDERANCE TO SOMETHING BEING 'TRUE':
RATIONALITY:
OR
FREEDOM FROM CONTRADICTION OR
PARADOX IS NOT A NECESSARY AND/OR SUFFICENT CONDITION FOR 'TRUTH' :
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EXAMPLES

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/irrationality.pdf




Quote:
We shall see that some of the most successful theories in mathematics and science in predicting events are in fact paradoxical or self-contradictory. This being so then it follows that other views containing paradox or self-contradiction such as religion - both primitive and semi-modern- mental illness, magic, the so called pseudo-sciences, superstition, mythology, occultism, non-materialistic etc are not precluded from being 'truth' claims. This is because freedom from contradiction, or absurdity, or meaninglessness is not a necessary and/or sufficient condition for 'truth' as we shall see. Rationality, or the rules of logic are not necessary and sufficient criteria of something being 'true' as has been assumed by anthropologists, philosophers, psychologists etc in our rationality fixated West. Examples from mathematics and science show that somethings can be self-contradictory or paradoxical and still be 'true'. Also examples show that mutually contradictory, or incommensurable explanations can both explain and predict the correct results. This indicates that there are other types of comprehension in the world with 'truth' status other than the those based upon the logical principles of a rationality fixated West. The examples from mathematics and science show that rationality as conceived of by the West is a straight jacket upon the mind and both delimits and controls what is possible The possible is far greater than Western logic or rationality can allow or conceive.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,255 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 07:57 am
@pam69ur,
pam69ur,Smile

I perhaps do not fully understand,are you suggesting that there is to be no means of evaluating,or reasoning any premise, all are necessarily on some even playing field,we should embrace the absurd? There are a lot of religious people at this site whom I imagine would grasp at this as a means to taking a shot at science, but fellowing this advice I supspect that no one would be able to find their way home at the end of the day.Very Happy
pam69ur
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2007 12:39 pm
@boagie,
Quote:
I perhaps do not fully understand,are you suggesting that there is to be no means of evaluating,or reasoning any premise, all are necessarily on some even playing field,we should embrace the absurd?


Dean is saying we already embace the absurd
maths and science are irrational/illogical meaningless at the very herat of them dean argues this in his book - of which the link in this thread is a companon book
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf
The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views

What dean is arguing in "hinderance" is that we see how absurd every thing is when even CONTRADICTION, OR INCONSISTENCY WITHIN A VIEW AS WELL AS MUTUAL CONTRADICTION, OR INCOMMENSURABLITY BETWEEN VIEWS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE VIEW OR BOTH VIEWS FROM BEING 'TRUE

yes consistency can be a crtiteria for truth but absurdly it turns out even inconsistency or illogically does not mean something cant be true
what i supose this means is that logical truth is not the only truth and that logical truth canot be regarded as the only criterai for something being true
to only have logical truth as the criteria dean shows delimits the possiblities of the real and truth
in other words we have NO epistemology which can solely ajudicate what is to be only the truth
if logical truth was the sole criteriai then there are truths in science which would never have been discovered
as feryerband states science has no methodology
what dean does is show this in order to open up the scientific mind to a wider range of truths to be discovered by abondoning this obsession with logical truth
logical truth has for to long been a straightjacket on the mind
dean tries and take this striaght jacket of so that we can find truths which logical truth stops us from discovering
ogden
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2008 08:57 pm
@pam69ur,
pam69ur wrote:
What dean is arguing in "hinderance" is that we see how absurd every thing is when even CONTRADICTION, OR INCONSISTENCY WITHIN A VIEW AS WELL AS MUTUAL CONTRADICTION, OR INCOMMENSURABLITY BETWEEN VIEWS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE VIEW OR BOTH VIEWS FROM BEING 'TRUE


Hi Pam69ur, interesting stuff!

How would dean "argue" anything without rationale? Just because anything could be true, does not mean that everything is true.

While truth is not always measured or defined with logic or science, but logical premises are sometimes more usefull than illogical ones. If nothing is required to make sense then our minds are swiming in soup, nothing to stand on. In some cases, logical, rationale thought limits the imagination. The imagination is usefull and should not be limited by logic, but logic is the measure of what the imagination produces. I would say thinking outside the box, or pushing the evelope is great, but for truth to be usefull at all, it must be grounded in something meaningfull and rational.

Truth is a slippery fish that must be held delicately from as many sides as possible.
pam69ur
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2008 10:02 pm
@ogden,
Quote:
If nothing is required to make sense then our minds are swiming in soup, nothing to stand on


i am afraid that is the very situation

there is to be no means of evaluating,or reasoning any premise

you say
Quote:
Just because anything could be true, does not mean that everything is true.


yes
but the dean theorem states
Quote:
CONTRADICTION, OR INCONSISTENCY WITHIN A VIEW AS WELL AS MUTUAL CONTRADICTION, OR INCOMMENSURABLITY BETWEEN VIEWS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE VIEW OR BOTH VIEWS FROM BEING 'TRUE


so where does that leave us in accertianing what is true or not
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2008 10:53 pm
@pam69ur,
Contradiction is only absolute if the two contrasting views themselves are absolute. In how many cases are those criteria met?
pam69ur
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2008 11:31 pm
@Aedes,
Quote:
Contradiction is only absolute if the two contrasting views themselves are absolute. In how many cases are those criteria met?


have a read of deans work and tell us how many are met-it would be interesting to get your opinion
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:46 pm
@pam69ur,
A method is simply a path to a destination. There is no natural exlusion of multiple paths to a single destination. As far as real world practicum, all roads lead to Rome.
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 07:31 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
A method is simply a path to a destination. There is no natural exlusion of multiple paths to a single destination. As far as real world practicum, all roads lead to Rome.


Exactly the point I would have made - I think that to assert that mathematics and science reveal "truth" is to misunderstand mathematics and science.

Mathematics is symbol processing - that's all ... as luck(?) would have it, sometimes symbol processing is isomorphic with elements of the real world - this is "applied mathematics" (as contrasted with "pure mathematics" which is mathematics for its own sake) ... and each time mathematics makes a novel prediction about the real world, that prediction needs to be tested - that is, the assumed isomorphism needs to re-validated.

Science is a method for bettering our useful understanding of the world - that's all ... it's an imperfect method - that's why I say it can only help us better our useful understanding ... that is, if we were to stumble across the truth of life, the universe, and everything (at last estimate, 42), science would not release a bevy of balloons and confetti to announce "You found it!!!" ... in fact, if having found the truth we were unable to make use of it, we might instead move on to alternative theories that were more useful (general relativity and quantum mechanics, though incompatible with one another as theories of the world, are more useful than 42).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/25/2019 at 02:46:50