Quote:
Originally Posted by alegro  I think that's a possible, simplified way to phrase it.
I like how JF formulated it - I do not dispute that there are presents under the Christmas tree. I just don't think it is necessary to believe that Santa Claus put them there.
To stay with that analogy:
i) A "believer" in the LoA will insist that it was Santa Claus who put them there and that he will always do so no matter what.
ii) A believer in the "action-booster" principle will also insist that Santa Claus put them there, but only if you have been a good boy and enough friends.
iii) A skeptic would say that they will be there if you have enough friends. And she would observe that this criterion is a necessity and make up a theory that her friends put them there. Unless she is willing to check on her friends the two possibilities ii) and iii) are indistinguishable, so she goes with iii) since it somehow feels "simpler" and since she doesn't understand why Santa Claus would worry about her having friends. A true skeptic would be ready, however, to reconsider the position once somebody comes up with a methodologically clean way to distinguish between i), ii), and iii).
Most people "believing" in the LoA would happily agree with everybody who propagandizes i). Then yell out that they "actually" meant number ii) as soon as i) becomes untenable by observation. They would reject iii) because it doesn't fit into their world view ... and, of course, because it is in contradiction with i). |
The problem with this analogy and with reducing everything into logical terms is that it fails to recognize metaphor. By metaphor I mean that there are multiple interpretations to the same event that can exist simultaneously. To run with your example, Santa Claus is the spirit of Christmas or goodwill or giving in itself. Believing in this spirit would lead you to act in accordance with it, such as giving gifts to your friends. If your friends also believe in the same, they will give gifts to you leading to presents under the Christmas tree. If you or your friends do not believe in Santa, no presents.
Your thinking starts with the assumption of what people believe and you take their beliefs at face value. Like an LOA 'true believer' thinks that Santa is a big guy in a red suit who lives at the North Pole. Or, to step out of this analogy, that I can just sit around thinking about money and it will come to me.
In my opinion, LOA is part of the larger concept that is 'you create your own reality'. As I've stated it previously, what you believe you will summon the evidence to prove. Oddly enough, I think that skepticism would not counter this idea. Any line of reason leads back to an assertion accepted as self-evident. That assertion can be questioned or countered with other assertions, which is skepticism in a nutshell.
Where I would differ with skepticism is in the assertion that logic and empirical data are the true basis of reality. A skeptic accepts this assertion
a priori just like everyone else accepts their beliefs in the same manner. There is no human being that sees things as they are, they project a belief onto it and skeptics is not an exception. That being the case, what this is all about is consciously choosing what we believe. For most people, they take what they are given in terms of belief. They question it when it no longer serves them or (in the case of skepticism) when inquiry itself serves them better. That's why so many people come on this forum wondering how this works. It's also why people like you and John come here berating people for it not working.
I would bet that any skeptic on close inspection began by question her own beliefs because they were no longer 'working' for her. Being unable to find a new belief system, she opts for the questioning of all belief systems. In the end though, this is also a belief system.