quote:

---

A SHIPOWNER was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not over-well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.
What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts.

W. K. Clifford

1879

---

[ 19 March 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

W.K. Clifford

Makes sense to me!

[ 19 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

I guess in a sense by our own dispositional natures, we will select those things which seem to hold true?

We might revise, as we learn more, as seems to be the case while reserving judgement, we undertand well that some discisions are based on previous knowledge, somewhere?

Or how could anything congregate around it, determine the future? So this presupposes some basis had to exist, before the need arises, a ship, an idea, sets the stage.

Will the issues remain resolved, and no further doubts assailing the mind, to include a positive reaction in terms of safety? Maybe complacency, from system of rote, that has lulled a good mind into sleeping, when it should have remained on guard?

The discourse could go on forever,leading from one thing to the next. But at some point you accept the descision you made, and you firmly entrench it into your belief system.

Have you forgotten your history with your family? What is your character now?

These events set the stage for who you are now. You react, and why is it you react this way, and not some other way?

Interesting topic.

[ 19 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
"We may believe what goes beyond our experience, only when it is inferred from that experience by the assumption that what we do not know is like what we know.
        We may believe the statement of another person, when there is reasonable ground for supposing that he knows the matter of which he speaks, and that he is speaking the truth so far as he knows it.
        It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe."

W.K. Clifford

Makes sense to me!

[ 19 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

---

"...and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe."

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeftRight:

"...and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe."

I'm not sure of my interpretation of this last bit. It is worse to doubt and investigate than the presumption to believe? Or a doubt as a belief with insufficient grounds....that must be it. So in other words if you leap to doubt the word of a person you have no grounds for disbelieving, then your doubt is worse than a presumption to believe. The slang word for that is "prejudice".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:

Your interpretation is wrong.

---

You're not taking into account the first part of the phrase (It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence). If there is sufficient evidence, it is silly (presumptuous, arrogant) not to believe, sillier than believing. I think he was playing with the sense of the word presumption.

Frankly, I feel that you distorted the sense of the words to make them fit into your "prejudice" idea.

[ 23 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

I often say that the one thing that truly separates us from our cousins is the human ability for self deception. A little unfair; I can't concieve of an experiment that could confirm or eliminate that trait in Chimps and Bonobos.

But as Farley Mowat once said, never let the facts get in the way of the truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
This is how I interpret it:

You're not taking into account the first part of the phrase (It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence). If there is sufficient evidence, it is silly (presumptuous, arrogant) not to believe, sillier than believing. I think he was playing with the sense of the word presumption.

Frankly, I feel that you distorted the sense of the words to make them fit into your "prejudice" idea.

[ 23 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
"Going to church doesn't make you christian any more then (than?) standing in a garage makes you a car, or a Valkyrie for that matter. People who try and convert often achive the opposite of what they intend." - a rather wise-assed friend of mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
In an attempt to clearly define what separates us from the other animals, we've come up with this deffinition and that, only to find that Chimps and Bonobos ruin it by doing some rudimentary form of what we thought made us unique. Tool making being a classic example.

I often say that the one thing that truly separates us from our cousins is the human ability for self deception. A little unfair; I can't concieve of an experiment that could confirm or eliminate that trait in Chimps and Bonobos.

But as Farley Mowat once said, never let the facts get in the way of the truth.

One of the great challenges of sceptical thinking is to turn the blade inward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Technically, "IQ"-- assigning a numerical value to an abstract concept like "intelligence" isn't very scientific, and I worry about what that might do to the human rights of people with severe Downs Syndrome.

Self doubt is different from the self examination of one's motives, one's rationalizations, and how they play into your decision making regarding others.

---

Human rights is more about class struggle than how I differ from the animals. Now we have animal rights and animal protection laws. Animal activism gets more attention than does class struggle.