Re: MD On Faith

From: Erin (
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 06:49:05 BST

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD On Faith"

    All sounds reasonable but I never thought the empirical label applied to the resurrection. I was trying to understand if it really applied to Quality/values.
    Would you do this reasoning step-by-step for empirical evidence for Quality/values the way you did it for no empirical evidence for the resurrection.

    Mark Steven Heyman <> wrote:

    So, say, when someone tells you they've witnessed a resurrection,
    this doesn't mean that it's possible to bring dead people back to
    life, and a rational empiricist philosophy is by no means committed
    to such an idea. The report of a resurrection does not constitute
    empirical evidence of a resurrection. Rather, it might be a starting
    point for further rational and empirical investigation, which would
    include the real empirical evidence of of what happens to human
    bodies after death, and the logical argument, supported by empirical
    evidence, that its impossible to reactivate a human brain after the
    brain has physically disintegrated.

    Let me just leave it here for now, and see what you think.

    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site:
    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is 
    everything." -- Henri Poincare'
    On 26 Oct 2004 at 18:20, Erin wrote:
    Simon Magson wrote: 
    ERIN: >You used the example of being thirsty and drinking (drinking 
    >observable, your being thirsty isn't
    SM: Everybody knows when they are thirsty, it is completely 
    observable by 
    ERIN: I would say everyone experiences thirst. It is not observable 
    though. For example, a young kid at a party is he drinking because 
    he is thirsty or from peer pressure, I don't know because I can not 
    observe his thirst.
    SM: Philosophy should start with these simple observations and not 
    physiological theory resulting from a chain of deductions. Thirst, 
    hunger, pain, heavy, light, hard, soft are all present and immediate 
    in the 
    real world from which we develop our rhetoric and start 
    ERIN: again the difference one really is observable and the other is 
    reasoned about. It is a reasonable assumption that when somebody 
    drinks he it is because he is experiencing thirst. (but i still 
    think it is the drinking that is being observed not the thirst)
    ERIN: >The actions that stem from values are observable but values 
    are not so 
    >don't feel comfortable with "value is empirical" statement.
    SM: The lack of comfort you are describing is itself an empirical 
    value. It 
    seems you have been conditioned to perceive value in, and ascribe 
    to, only that which you can see.
    ERIN: The lack of comfort is when a definition is stretched so far 
    that it is being used in situations that isalmost theopposite of 
    the meaning and so the word loses all meaning. NO, I am not 
    conditioned to perceive value to only what I can see, I am 
    "conditioned" to using the dictionary meanings and applyingthe word 
    empirical to which is observable (not only see, but hear, touch, 
    taste, etc. JUST SO IT ISOBSERVABLE). I do experience values that 
    are not observable but ***I*** don't label them as "empirical",
    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -
    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    MOQ.ORG  -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward  -
    MD Queries -
    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 06:51:42 BST