Progress after the Royal Society conference?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@lee_merrill

No, that is not my view at all. I would point out that Newton had incomplete evidence, that also can be the cause of an incorrect conclusion. Seeing that someone is saying something, and that an irrational cause is causing that thought, is also a reason to reject a statement. I mention that this is something we do all the time, because we do.

I’m glad you agree. I bring it up because you make statements like this …

@lee_merrill

Yet we reject a quite logical argument that stems from paranoia, from unreasoning causes! If everyone is out to get you, you quite logically won’t call the police if something bad happens to you, because of course, they are out to get you too. An argument coming from nonreason, we always reject it, we don’t consider that valid reasoning, it’s part of a meritorious argument.

The paranoid is reasoning, albeit from incorrect information or mental aberration, but that is not “coming from nonreason”; it is reasoning to an incorrect conclusion. You see the difference? You keep going on about reason not coming from non-reason, but I think you mean something different.

And FWIW, it is also possibly (but perhaps unlikely) to reach a correct conclusion from faulty reasoning.