<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://psychcentral.com/lib/doubt-ocd-how-do-you-make-a-decision/">OCD</a> is another condition that might explain a fixation on doubt. Perhaps individuals in very narrow specialties are especially concerned with reputation
and will go to great lengths to minimize regret or embarrassment, but I don’t think even careful people act like theorem provers. The world keeps turning and there is no time for that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 7/7/18, 4:06 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen" <friam-bounces@redfish.com on behalf of gepropella@gmail.com> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Well, of course you know where I stand on this. That description of 'doubt' is useless to me because I doubt everything. There is no such thing as 'paralyzing doubt'. I'd lean more towards Marcus answer on that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Similarly, I don't place 'good thought' in opposition to doubt. To me, doubt IS good thought. The absence of doubt would be the worst kind of thought. And I suppose that implies that science includes the active maintenance of methods
by which we doubt/question various assertions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> On July 6, 2018 8:37:38 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <nickthompson@earthlink.net> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >There is another solution to suicidal skepticism which Is to embrace<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >scientism but broaden the definition of science. This, I think, is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >CSPeirce's way. We define good thought as any thought that will, in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >the fullness of time ... the very, very fullness of time .. be agreed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >upon. Good thought is thought that, once and for all, assuages doubt.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> ><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >Now, science is defined as that method, that will be agreed, in the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >very long run to produce good thinking. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> ><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >Notice that this way out of the scientism debate concedes that a value<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >lies at the bottom of scientismicists’ affection for science ... the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >assuaging of REAL doubt. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> ><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >Therefore, I stipulate that anybody who embraces REAL doubt as a way of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> >life is NOT going to be happy with this solution. <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> -- <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> glen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> ============================================================<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>