[chezlaw]

There's been much use by DS of an argument, that looks a bit like an appeal to authority, which I've always agreed with. Its been much criticised, especially recently suggesting DS would have to become a christian if a sane alive-today Newton was a christian.

Nothing in the Newton argument could directly alter my religous view and yet I think I agree with DS's argument. Is this a serious problem or just a misunderstanding of DS's argument by me or others?


Consider this example. Suppose someone post a poker problem and I thinks it's an obvious fold for reason R.

Some newbie posts thats its an easy raise for reason R' that makes no sense to me. I can rationally justify ignoring R' as being delivered by a newbie, there is a very strong possibility it makes no sense.

To my suprise DS responds to the post (assume they posted it in SciMathPhil by mistake) and says that newbie has it right and R' is correct.

Rationally, should I believe R' is correct?

[There is the (small) possibility that DS is mistaken and the possibility that we have interpreted the question different - neither of these matter so I'm ignoring them]

I don't think that DS's argument is that I should believe R', rather he is saying I should stop believing R.

Hopefully I will be able to learn and understand why R' is correct but If I can't understand it then I have to accept it's beyond my understanding.

Returning to religon, If I believed christianity was irrational and then sane Newton comes along saying it is, but I can't understand his explanation. Then I have to answer the question 'Is Christianity rational?' with a humble 'Beyond me but Newton thinks so'

Maybe this thread can help clarify DS's argument and whether or not its correct.


chez