[lbo-talk] Appeal to Ignorance

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Mon Jun 13 08:57:44 PDT 2005


On 06/13/05 11:04, Andy F wrote:
> --- ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:
>
>> a tangential thought: is the god hypothesis (which i
>> do not subscribe
>> to, btw) any sillier than a "lawful universe"
>> hypothesis? because there
>> is some (though not sufficient) "proof" for the
>> latter?
>
> What do you find silly about the idea of a lawful
> universe? What would you consider sufficient proof?

silly in the sense of unnecessary. one can practice science, or hiking, without having to believe that the universe is entirely lawful, yes?


> Without some underlying organization, how could we
> exist, much less develop what predictive ability that
> we do have?

hence my second part: there is some proof that there the reason why our predictive ability is more or less successful and of utility. but its not conclusive (especially since science and math themselves provide interesting paradoxes). but what value does a belief in a completely lawful universe add (other than as a motivational tool) to the ability to do science, etc (in fact, the extreme platonism of godel seems to have driven him not to believe in various parts of the natural sciences, including the theory of evolution)?

--ravi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list