Benefit and belief

[Westley Martínez]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:22:59AM -0700, rusi wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:58 pm, Neil Cerutti <ne... at norwich.edu> wrote:
> > On 2011-09-30, DevPlayer <devpla... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
> >
> > > By that I mean: just because an objects scope may not see a certain
> > > condition, doesn't mean that condition is non-existant.
> >
> > > I also propose that just because something seems to contradict doesn't
> > > mean it is false. Take for instance:
> >
> > > Look out your window. Is it daylight or night time? You may say
> > > it is daylight or you may say it is night time. I would
> > > disagree that only one of those conditions are true. Both
> > > conditions are true. Always. It is only day (or night) for YOU.
> > > But the opposite DOES in fact exist on the other side of the
> > > world at the same time.
> >
> > > I call this Duality of Nature (and I believe there was some
> > > religion somewhere in some time that has the same notion,
> > > Budism I think but I could be mistaken). I see such
> > > "contradictions" in what appears to be most truths.
> >
> > You are not alone. Many ancient philosophers, fathers of
> > religious and scientific thought, thought the same.
> >
> > They thought that contradictory qualities could exist in objects
> > simultaneously. For example, they thought that a cat was both big
> > and small, because it was big compared to a mouse and small
> > compared to a house. They didn't notice that big and small were
> > not poperties of the cat, at all but were instead statements
> > about how a cat relates to another object.
> >
> > When you say, "It is night," you are making an assertion about a
> > position on the surface of the earth and its relationship to the
> > sun.
> >
> > If you are not discussing a specific a position on the Earth,
> > then you cannot make a meaningful assertion about night or day at
> > all. Night and Day are not qualities of the entire Earth, but
> > only of positions on the Earth.
> 
> But just imagine that we were all pre-galiliean savages -- knowing
> nothing about the roundness of the earth, the earth going round and so
> on and somehow you and I get on the phone and we start arguing:
> Rusi: Its 9:30 pm
> Neil: No its 12 noon
> 
> How many cases are there?
> We both may be right, I may be wrong (my watch may have stopped) or we
> both etc
> 
> ie conflicting data may get resolved within a larger world view (which
> is what devplayer is probably saying).
> 
> Until then it is wiser to assume that that larger world view exists
> (and I dont yet know it)
> than to assume that since I dont know it it does not exist.
> 
> For me (admittedly an oriental) such agnosticism (literally "I-do-not-
> know-ness") is as much a foundation for true religiosity as effective
> science

I.e. humility?