Re: [UFOnet] Re: 1. Hume's Proof
- Hi Joe
>>>>>>1. It assumes a perfect understanding of nature by man.It doesn't. It seems more like: He is making out that when one has a Belief
of how the universe operates and witnesses say something that contradicts
that Belief, then there is no reason to believe them.
>>>>>>>2. It ignores cases which include supporting evidence, e.g., multipleindependent witnesses.
Multiple witnesses can be deceived, not just single witnesses.
Your Point 1 is almost right. Hume would like to assume that he knows best,
i.e. knows perfect understanding of nature. But what he has is a way of
maintaining his own Belief system (whether it is perfect or erroneous in
understanding nature) and preventing it from being amended by anything
It is ideas like Hume's that modern science has been built on. That is why
I think modern science is a religion, and not a proper science. i.e.
Scientists like to believe that they are building on truth, and so don't
need to worry about any foundations laid long ago by other workers.
Believing earlier work correct, they then seek to build on that , and
believing 'they' know best, 'they' then debunk (or allow others to debunk)
any criticism of their foundations.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe McGonagle" <joe@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 7:49 PM
Subject: [UFOnet] Re: 1. Hume's Proof
> There are at least two flaws.
> 1. It assumes a perfect understanding of nature by man.
> 2. It ignores cases which include supporting evidence, eg, multiple
> independent witnesses.
> It looks to me like a cynical excercise to get a "proof" named after