tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post7839410885662755144..comments2024-03-20T19:40:58.078-05:00Comments on The OF Blog: Brief reaction to a quote from Jim Holt's Why Does the World Exist?Larry Nolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-84337732146206447532013-02-21T03:27:29.487-06:002013-02-21T03:27:29.487-06:00Yes, it's plausible, but it also can lead to a...Yes, it's plausible, but it also can lead to a sort of willful blindness, some might argue, because the line of questioning can introduce a series of biases into it that would color the questions that spark research, hypotheses, and theories. But mind you, my own view on the matter is that of a genial skeptic: some things just may <i>need</i> to remain a mystery, because the explanations derived from certain lines of questioning may be worse than having no answers at all. It's why I distrust the likes of Dawkins much more than I would distrust certain theistic lines of query into why there is something instead of nothing: the functions of these questions are at least as important as any theoretical explorations of them. From what I've read second-hand regarding Dawkins and many others, they seem to be too quick to dismiss these matters of function.Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-55575619140139356172013-02-21T03:00:11.652-06:002013-02-21T03:00:11.652-06:00I'd imagine that it's all relative. It'...I'd imagine that it's all relative. It's quite possible that science would search for the simplest among complex theories. Isn't that plausible?<br /><br />At the same time, I don't see science as the type to singlemindedly search for simplicity for simplicity's sake. Harry Markovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09140305922494369576noreply@blogger.com