I haven’t read that work by Russell, but from your description, I don’t begrudge him his instinctive beliefs! That’s why we have the methodology of science—to test our instincts against experience and abandon those that fail. It’s been a productive process so far!
It mirrors a similar but tougher situation in moral philosophy, where we are likewise unable to derive initial moral principles by pure logic alone. So we let our moral philosophers, too, choose starting assumptions and test them. But what is the moral analog to scientific experimentation against physical reality? Something like John Rawls’ “reflective equilibrium” perhaps.
I haven’t read that work by Russell, but from your description, I don’t begrudge him his instinctive beliefs! That’s why we have the methodology of science—to test our instincts against experience and abandon those that fail. It’s been a productive process so far!
It mirrors a similar but tougher situation in moral philosophy, where we are likewise unable to derive initial moral principles by pure logic alone. So we let our moral philosophers, too, choose starting assumptions and test them. But what is the moral analog to scientific experimentation against physical reality? Something like John Rawls’ “reflective equilibrium” perhaps.
Big fan of the book of mormon!