RE: rational naturalism is impossible!
October 4, 2013 at 4:33 am
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2013 at 4:39 am by FallentoReason.)
(October 4, 2013 at 4:14 am)genkaus Wrote: I think this is called a "hasty generalization" fallacy.
A: Caveman needs to be able to determine the truth in order to survive.
B: Caveman needs to be able to determine the whole truth in order to survive.
B does not follow A.
The urge to run away is the result of the knowledge that the lion in front of you is dangerous and about to kill you. The false belief that it is just a sack of potatoes dressed in a scary way would not produce the same response. So, while the whole truth of the lion's genealogy is not required, the truth about its carnivorous nature is.
You're hijacking my example. I'm telling you that the caveman is running away from what he *believes to be a sack of potatoes dressed as a lion*. Therefore, the response is "run away", all the while the belief is "it's a sack of potatoes dressed as a scary thing". Survivability has been preserved while truth hasn't ergo survivability is independent of anything the caveman might believe to be true, which might include a false belief as to why a sack of potatoes is after him (i.e. he doesn't understand the creature is carnivorous).
genkaus Wrote:Not quite. His reaction of "arghh... scawey!" is dependent upon his knowledge of the danger the lion represents.
Which in that particular example happens to be that goblins hiding underneath lion skin are after him, thus producing the "arghh... scawey!" reaction out of him.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
