Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive

Re: Assumption of wrongness

Re: Assumption of wrongness

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Sambersil on September 17, 2000 at 17:44:14:

In Reply to: assumption of wrongness posted by isaac on September 17, 2000 at 02:53:58:

Yes, in systems of axioms we can weed out mistakes. But, if we made them in the first place, we can make the same mistakes again or make new mistakes in correcting them. We still cannot ever be sure of any statement these axioms give us, and we can't even be certain that our corrections are weeding out more mistakes than they are making. And, while we seem to be depending solely on these axioms without any possibility for error, I am sure you have made a mistake in math before, while thinking you were depending correctly and solely upon the axioms. I have, and I think everyone else shares this experience. No matter how sure you can be about the logic, there might be a dumb error lurking there, unnoticed. There might be a dumb error lurking ANYWHERE, unnoticed, even in this reasoning that errors might be there. NO chain of logic can be assumed true just because it seems to follow all the axioms.

: now, i've already read that you cannot accept any philosophy, belief, science, etc, because it's possibly wrong. so what? you can't beleive anything 100%, fine. but to say that you can't even engage in the process or learn about it or try to understand how it works is just plain moronic, and has nothing to DO with beleif. it's like saying, "the rules of chess might be wrong, so i won't play chess." but the rules of chess ARE chess, and nothing else! how could they be wrong, if they're only right in terms of themselves? math is not a "belief", it's a totally enclosed, independent, fun and useful game-world. for that matter, so is philosophy usually, or should be. if you are all about saying crazy things and you aren't interested in developing or defending your position except to say it again and again, don't post it in a discussion-oriented forum; go start a cult.

When rules are defined in terms of themselves, I wouldn't really call them beliefs. Beliefs are things that do not run contrary to logic, but are not derived from logic either, whether or not the logic is correct. And I have a lot of beliefs (I play chess too). I believe in science, and I believe in my personal religion which I don't think I have posted here yet. There's nothing wrong with beliefs; they DON'T run counter to logic. Math is not a belief; conclusions derived from math just aren't necessarily correct because of the possibility of a mistake.
I ACCEPT beliefs, I just also recognize their non-logical status.

About my restating my point of view endlessly: it's because I don't think the people who read it understood it the first time, and if I explain it in a manner that applies more directly to the issue at hand I think they will agree with me and realize what I mean.

Follow Ups:

Re: Assumption of wrongness isaacthe54 23:32:42 09/18/00 (1)
- Re: Assumption of wrongness Sambersil 19:59:58 09/19/00 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Yes, in systems of axioms we can weed out mistakes. But, if we made them in the first place, we can make the same mistakes again or make new mistakes in correcting them. We still cannot ever be sure of any statement these axioms give us, and we can't even be certain that our corrections are weeding out more mistakes than they are making. And, while we seem to be depending solely on these axioms without any possibility for error, I am sure you have made a mistake in math before, while thinking you were depending correctly and solely upon the axioms. I have, and I think everyone else shares this experience. No matter how sure you can be about the logic, there might be a dumb error lurking there, unnoticed. There might be a dumb error lurking ANYWHERE, unnoticed, even in this reasoning that errors might be there. NO chain of logic can be assumed true just because it seems to follow all the axioms. : : now, i've already read that you cannot accept any philosophy, belief, science, etc, because it's possibly wrong. so what? you can't beleive anything 100%, fine. but to say that you can't even engage in the process or learn about it or try to understand how it works is just plain moronic, and has nothing to DO with beleif. it's like saying, "the rules of chess might be wrong, so i won't play chess." but the rules of chess ARE chess, and nothing else! how could they be wrong, if they're only right in terms of themselves? math is not a "belief", it's a totally enclosed, independent, fun and useful game-world. for that matter, so is philosophy usually, or should be. if you are all about saying crazy things and you aren't interested in developing or defending your position except to say it again and again, don't post it in a discussion-oriented forum; go start a cult. : When rules are defined in terms of themselves, I wouldn't really call them beliefs. Beliefs are things that do not run contrary to logic, but are not derived from logic either, whether or not the logic is correct. And I have a lot of beliefs (I play chess too). I believe in science, and I believe in my personal religion which I don't think I have posted here yet. There's nothing wrong with beliefs; they DON'T run counter to logic. Math is not a belief; conclusions derived from math just aren't necessarily correct because of the possibility of a mistake. : I ACCEPT beliefs, I just also recognize their non-logical status. : About my restating my point of view endlessly: it's because I don't think the people who read it understood it the first time, and if I explain it in a manner that applies more directly to the issue at hand I think they will agree with me and realize what I mean.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type5board/messages/528.html

Your Ad Here