Deep Smart

SO i have also come across a deep smart, whose intuition power is very strong - but not for the first though.

We're travelling in a car from city A to city B. One of us got a call reporting that one suicide bomber has been caught in metropolitan city A in a bank. My father said that he can't be a (regular) suicide bomber. He must be using it loot the bank; he'd have shown it to people and thereby terrifying them, would have tried to get his hands on bank's cash.

MashaAllah, i quote DAWN newspaper, leading newspaper of Pakistan, which confirmed my father's intuition the next day:

"Robber held with fake bombs

LAHORE: May 28: In what appeared to be a Hollywood-style adventure, an alleged robber tried to loot cash from bank by displaying two fake bombs at Akbar Chowk in Township. The suspect was however captured by the bank's security guards and handed over to police."

That Truth is Truth and Transcends Space-and-Time; And that Truth is not Systematic

Ibn Ata Illah in his Kitab al-Hikam says:

"He who is illuminated at the beginning is illuminated at the end."

And this is Truth. Yes, it exists.

Intuitive Analysis of Grammar

Very funny. Image Source

When intuition judges something not by its 'meaning', it does so by the 'form' and 'position' of it. This not to say that it does so with any subject under its consideration. But, this is very much the case with grammatical analysis of language. However, as they say that an argument triggers off another, so is what happens when we talk about analyzing language in terms of grammar: Which comes first - language or grammar? This can be a moot debatable point. Yet, it may have been already resolved in the already present ocean of knowledge. In fact, it owes to the ignorance of the writer and his plight that he has read so much so less that he is unable to commit: I don't know sir.

But. A definition of grammar: 'Grammar can be briefly described as a set of rules for constructing and for analysing sentences.' [G. Leech et al, 1982]

Then as per this definition of grammar, grammar is primarily a tool for constructing and analysing the language or sentences. It sees sentences as independent units which are made of up of different constituents or parts. We have the definitions of those constituents on which a sentence is constructed, and when analysed into its parts. And, when the analysis is done, it is usually done in a formal way by correlating the parts of the sentence with their actual 'meaning' already defined. For instance, in the sentence [(Mark) (is) (on) (a) (mission)] The square brackets show that it is a complete sentence (or an independent clause), whereas the round brackets contain the CONSTITUENTS. (Mark) is noun, (on) a preposition and so on. The question was how to parse or analyze the sentence. We did it on with help of definitions and their meaning that (Mark) is a noun because it satisfies the definition of a 'noun' and because knew the meaning of the noun. (I must caution you here that even having developed sets of constituents, yet the boundries of the grammatical terms are very much in fusion.)

This method is carried out at the basic and formal level in grammar studies in schools and colleges. But, there is another subtle and advance way of parsing or analysing sentences which goes beyond the meaning of words. For instance, when we do not know the meaning of the words, what do we do? How do we parse or analyse the sentence and find its grammatical components?

Take this silly poem Jabberwock by Lewis Carrol and one will come to fully appreciate the use of intuitive analysis, i.e, analysing the sentences with identifying the form and position of the'constituents', instead of analyzing the grammar in terms of meaning of the grammatical terms.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Toves and borogoves = nouns

Gyre, gimble, and outgrabe = verbs

Slithy and mimsy = adjectives

How did we know that? Obviously not on the basis of meaning! Instead, it was through identifying their 'position' and 'form', we reckoned it so. For instance, G. Leech and et al explain:

Borogoves is a noun because it ends in -s and because it follows the. (All mimsy were the borogoves,)

Slithy is an adjective because it comes between the and the plural noun toves. (...the slithy toves)

And, the rest you can at your own decode very easily, but by taking in view the form and position of the respective constituents. What it proves and shows is our intuitive skill in the analysis of grammar. And, also that intuition does not concern itself with rigorous findings of meaning. That is why it is more subtle and advanced. And, partially, it may also explain why we do not understand intuition fully, because of its independence from meaning.

* Quotes taken from the book by G. Leech et al, English Grammar for today.

A Young Man's Quest (I)

(*Intro*: A letter once a time ago I wrote for dispatching it with the book Spiritual Perspectives and Human Facts, by Frithjof Schoun, I presented to my teacher (not in the formal sense), which I as usual forgot to dispatch with the book. Written with an unconscious manner, it amuses me often how much wordplay I like.)

********

A Letter To A Teacher Far Far Away

Once A. K. Coomaraswamy, the great twentieth-century Indian expert on traditional metaphysics and art, said, “In Modern society the artist is a very special kind of person, while in traditional society every person is a special kind of artist.” Seyyed Hossien Nasr adds that this holds true for traditional Islamic society as well, where no distinction was made between fine arts and industrial arts or major and minor arts or religious and secular art.

While I recognize in you, every time, blend of both these kinds of artists, as, primarily, a special person and a special artist too. Because you made it possible for me to imagine and comprehend that this is a world an integrated form and element of psychic and material, i.e. in our terminology, soul and body. What Martin Lings made me aware recently of, is the world of Spirit, which happens to be transcending both the psychic and material world. But to be able to reach there, they say one needs highly tuned intellectual intuitions and a fitting mind to receive its rays - a discerning, discriminating mind, not merely a ‘brainy’ one.

This book which you have very graciously accepted bears testament and account to this world, i.e., of Spirit. What true intellect or art is, as this book lay bare is in transcending both psychic and material world (I know its confusing). The purpose of this practice is to evolve meaning out of weary material and psychological etc, facts which are evidences of that transcendent world. This is to find an end, purposeful and meaningful in our vision. Love of wisdom- philosophy- is to find our ways to reach that end, a journey that might never end in this mortal life. This quest, this question - who are we? - and many more like it, I am enthralled to observe in the mind of every child, every human being, no matter what his/her intellectual or religious environment be (and there fairy tale(s) help a child a lot in providing him answers to such universal questions, in a contemplative manner, not in scientific or rational).

I must end this letter here with a request: I am too young and unperceptive to decode the meaning and symbolism of this book. Frankly, I am much desperate in making sense out his symbolism, or of any artist because, firstly, I am not a serious and experienced an artist and intuitionist as you are; secondly, I have such inadequate diet of, no less infinite, ‘human facts’ which an old (not in terms of spirits but period of life) soul keeps locked and manifest in his memory and personality. I know an artist and intuitionist or be an ‘analytical’ mind, penetrates easily into the ideas and theories of the ‘specie’ of his/her kind. I am looking very much forward learning from you, and decipher mysteries and secrets of our cosmos and what may happen to be lying beyond it.

Seeker of the true path,

Yours faithfully,

Muhammad Umer Toor.

Intuition and Intellect: An Expert's View

 Umer:

Hello, I need your elaboration on this topic: "Intellect and intuition:from Islamic Prespective."
 Secondly, I want to ask you, what is the relationship between intellect and intuition? And, how come we achieve sound and reasonable intuition(s) or how come we verify our intuitive knowledge? Thanks.

A Teacher:

Dear Muhammad,

 I know not enough about Islam to be able to give that perspective on intuition, however I can say more about what I understand about intellect and intuition.

Intellect and intuition are both aspects of how our brain and mind works.  We are born with both: what we inherit from our parents and then though our experiences.  Both can be expanded and developed throughout our lives.  Our intellect is developed though our schooling and our interests.  This is a very obvious process - we start atnursery school and eventually might go on to do post graduate work.  I saw a programme about Stephen Hawkins recently and he certainly has an intellect!

 Turning to intuition that is more a silent process and generally not taught in schools.  However, as children we learn by observation how the world works and we develop knowing that is outside our conscious awareness.  Our intuition will communicate with us in non verbal, silent ways for example it will give us a "gut feel" about something and at the time we might not know what that was about.  A little time later it all makes sense so our intuition is fast and often it takes a while for our conscious mind to catch up. 

 What our unconscious mind - intuition - picks up are small signals, makes and judgement about it.  For example, a racing car driver who was approaching a bend suddenly found himself braking hard.  He did not know why but then as he turned into the bend there was a accident ahead and if he had carried on at his normal speed he would have crashed himself.  Was this intuition?  Well yes and no because later he realised he had seen something out of the ordinary which made him brake.  On previous circuits the crowd were looking at him as he approached the bend.  This time they were facing towards the bend and with hindsight he realised they were looking at the crash.  His unconcious processing knew what ahead was not usual and so put the brakes on.  There are lots more examples like this which explains how intuition works.

 Hope this helps!!

 

Logic Went All The Way In The Letter

Umer: [with a yearning heart] I deeply respect math and see in it, through an eye of admirer of Allah, a promising beauty of order, stability and symmetry. Since its all made of humans, it appears to me somewhat challenging, though, for I find difficulty while seeing things through an eye of scientist- which is of course very different in imaging things like him. My intuitions as a scientist, which acc to Einstein is the only really valuable thing, are crude and unrealiable. These wounds have origins in my past for I had not made a life-long struggle, a consistent effort on realizing things about mathematics. Very poor is my past record. But the problem failed solution more because of the ills and evils prevailing about me thrusted on a child's wonder by our society- people serving as teachers, or should I must say destroying a learner's heaven a school, have no talent for authentic creativity and no reverence for cognitive processes, they dull our minds if we don't struggle against it.
          Yes, in my intellectual carrer I failed to do that and passed on over years as lame duck cramming beautiful curious theories and formula, of course, without any realization of them. This is to me pathetic. I now find even anelementary book on this subject a sea of trouble yet I am conscious of the fact that for any breakthrough of great magnitude in field of economics, especially when doing Ph.D, one needs to be a deep and rigorous knower of mathematic. But I hope that with patience and deep meditations; with slow pace, I can get to the bottom of all that seemed to me mysterious.. What your experiences and illuminations have been with math?

Master Khuram: 

Hello, 

Thanks for sharing your ideas... 

Well, I see mathematics as a sub-descipline of Logic. To me, mathematics is the logic of quantities, directions, dimensions and numbers [and, to me is beauty, symmetry...]. Mathematics deal with these things either in material or abstract terms [my point-of-view changed here]. By taking mathematics as a branch of Logic, I am against over-emphasis on mathematics in scientific research methodologies [needs debating here, well let's read fully]. I am against it because officially accepted scientific research method doesn't employ "logic",,, even doesn't want to employ logic... Scientific research method only talks about mathematics. I am not so inspired of any superiority of mathematics. While I am happy with mathematics if it is considered as a branch of logic. [Emphasis added by me]

 Modern Science community even doesn't like any kind of rational or logical analysis. I have explained this thing in my following article: 

Nature of Science - Rational or Empirical…???

Below I m sharing what I wrote on this issue here and there on the Internet:

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

``It is by intuition that we discover and by logic that we prove.`` Henri Poincare, Mathematician...


I want to add that more prcise name of ``intuition`` is actually ``analogical inference``. Whereas branch of logic whose function is to ``prove`` is the ``deductive logic``.

All types of logic works only on sensory data.

There are two main types of ``sensory data``.

First type is ``ordinary or routine sensory information``.

Second type is ``planned``, or ``controlled``, or ``experimental``, or ``laboratory`` oriented sensory information or data.

First type generates ``analogical inferences``, or so-called ``intuitions``.

Then we confirm the validity of analogical inferences through ``controlled observations``, or ``experiments``. 

Then we SHOULD apply deductive logic with the view to interpret the experimental confirmations. Then we should Prove our interpretation by using deductive logic.

---------------------------------------------------------

Scientist do not know what is ``knowledge`` because Knowledge, being an abstract entity, is outside the scope of study of science.

Scientists do not study ``logic`` as well. Because they consider it something opposite to that something about which they know nothing i.e. ``knowledge``.

Even scientific theories take their birth iside of human mind. You cannot say that scientific theories come outside of mind. Mind is also an abstract entity. It is not the physical brain. Scioentists only study physical brain and they don`t study ``mind``. Study of physical brain only can tell reasons of some psychological or other neurological disorders etc. Study of physical brain cannot tell just how scientific or other theories take birth inside of ``mind``. Only study of ``mind`` can tell it.

Only Philosophers can know how any theory can take birth inside of mind. Because only they study such abstract things as ``mind``. So Philosophers can legitimately give their opinion on any theory including scientific theories as well.

Scientists are very poor in abstract conceptions. They can see only visible and solid things which they can count or measure. They become very happy if they successfully count or measure some solid or any detectable entity. That is why they study only mathematics. I was also very much inspired by mathematics when I was not mentally so mature. Just measuring and counting is not equivalent to ``knowledge``.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Actually a functional human mind works logically. I remember I could write logical assertions in those times also when I knew nothing of the theory of logic. I still have premises-conclusion patterned my own writings of that time. Scientists are also sane persons in all respects. They may not formally know the theory of logic but unconsciously, they do keep scientific theories in proper logical order. I do not say that scientists are ``illogical``. If I thought so then why I tried to show in the previous replies that many many theories of science are the product of logic? Scientists are logical. I accept this. But they are logical just unformally and unconsciously. They do not know that they act, behave and think in accordence with the principles of logic. They disregard theory of logic on the basis of certain intellectual mistakes.`` 
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Secondly, you say that scientists are expert of mathematics, which is strict form of logic.

Here I accept that scientists are expert of mathematics. But Mathematics is not the only ``strict`` form of logic. Deductive Logic is also strict form of logic. Inductive logic is lose form of logic but most of our thinking exists in inductive form. Are scientists not interested in the facts regarding the characteristics of their own minds (i.e. thinking)...???

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Here I am in need to clarify my ideological background. But before it I also should clarify that even ``Postmodern Philosophy`` is not having any serious conflict with science. Let me admit that Philosophy already has completely surrendered before science in 20th century. I am NOT representing any conventional philosophy like pre-postmodernism or post modernism. Neither of them are having any clash with science. Let me also state that Philosophy is not the name of ``pre-postmodernism`` or ``postmodernism``. Philosophy is the name of logical study of facts and ideas.

I know that Will Durant already stated that physical sciences have taken the problems of Philosophy and have solved them using its own methods. In this way Philosophy itself has lost all its importance because now onward, important things are only physical sciences. Major attacks on Philosophy came from the side of Philosophers themselves. Positivist Philosophy favoured extreme type of ``laboratory experimental method`` and rejected any logical inquiry by calling it mere speculative. Linguistic Philosophy rejected all the metaphysical inquiries and favoured only experimental verifiability of concepts. Science completely won the bettle against philosophy because Philosophers themselves surrenderred before science. Both Positivists and Linguistics rejected Epistemological inquiries also. Will Durant also disregarded Epistemology and even the theory of logic. I was however never convinced by these philosophies like Positivism or Linguistics. My main area of interest is still Epistemology. But my comprehension of even Epistemology is also complete non-conventional. I have tried to understand Epistemology in the light of basic concepts of Cultural Anthropology. I am therefore representing a whole different type of Epistemology which doesn`t exist anywhere else. Cultural Anthropology was developed on to its present tone by Sir James Frazer at the end of 19th century and in early 20th century. Realistically speaking, old big names of Epistemology were not familiar to Cultural Anthropology. On the other side, it should be difficult to deny the importance of any influence of the works of Sir James Frazer. His work (i.e. Golden Bough) could influence theory of Epistemology as well. As a result of this work, it was not very difficult to judge just how do we think and just how new ideas or new theories come to human mind. My main research in Epistemology is that just how do we think, what we can think, what we cannot think, just how new ideas or theories come to human mind etc. Let me also clarify that science is officially unaware of just how any new idea or theory comes to human mind. I shall be thankful to the respected chowk members if anyone could show me any scientific theory which might have explained the issue of just how new ideas or theories come to humam mind. Karl Popper also faced this problem but he could not find any satisfactory solution. His opinion was: ``there is no logical method for the acquisition of new concepts``.

In science, it is the ``scientific research method`` which attempts to discover new theories. I realized, while evaluating ``scientific research method`` that it had no answer to question that from where ``hypothesis`` comes. Science works on hypothesis but does not know where it comes from. I am, having the opinion that ``hypothesis`` comes from ``mind``. But study of ``mind``, being an ``abstract`` entity, is outside the scope of science. So science, in my honest assessment, doesn`t know where ``hypothesis`` comes from.

Secondly, at first I was inspired by ``Idealism`` and ``Pure Rationalism``. But soon after studying ``Cultural Anthropology``, I realized that ``Pure Rationalism`` is actually a misleading ideology. I already have explained just how ``Pure Rationalism`` is a misleading ideology, in some of my previous interacts in another chowk article about ``strings theory``. 

(or can be seen on my following article) 

Nature of Science - Rational or Empirical…???

Let me also clarify that any other branch of Philosophy still has not rejected ``Pure Rationalism`` on those grounds which I presented in my those previous interacts. ``Pure Rationalism`` is really practically impossible to exist because it really goes against the hard limitation of ``Deductive Logic``, which itself is supposed to be the main piller of ``Pure Rationalism``. The ``discovery`` of that ``hard limitation of deductive logic``, to some extent, is my original discovery. It was officially known that information of ``conclusion`` has to be already contained in ``premises``. Another guiding factor for me was a statement of David Hume which asserted that ``Rational Judgment is just an association of distinct sensations``. So in this way, finally I found that not a single word of ``conclusion`` can come from outside of ``premises``. At first I tried to apply this result on the ``Pure Rational`` Philosophy of Hegel, which led me to the rejection of ``Pure Rationalism``.

What I know out of the study of ``Epistemology`` is that human knowledge consists of three layers which are (i) instinctive, (ii) perceptional and; (iii) reason based. All types of human knowledge belongs to either one or more of these three basic layers. ``Instinctive`` and ``perceptional`` knowledge are inferior to ``reason based knowledge`` because ``reason based knowledge`` can be found only in humans whereas perceptional and instinctive knowledge is shared by humans and animals both. All of the ``organized human knowledge`` actually belongs to the layer of ``reason based knowledge``. ``Reason based knowledge`` itself is not more than logical conclusions (i.e. all types of logic including deductive, inductive and analogical) derived out of basic perceptional knowledge.

After it, I came to know that Will Durant had severly criticized and disregarded the theory of logic on the basis of those points which could not convince me. I also came to know that ``Science`` also emphasizes on so-called ``Empirical Knowledge`` and erroneously degrades all forms of ``Rational Knowledge``. In this way, science is actually going against superior form of knowledge which is ``reason based knowledge``. So, this clash between science and philosophy has been started on chowk. Therefore it shall be useless to try to find roots of this clash in the philosophy of ``Postmodernism``.

On chowk, I am struggling against science with the view to restore the importance of Philosophy. I am having interactions with many Philosophers of world as well and I am also struggling against them because they are the people who have completely surrendered before science. In fact, Philosophy has died in our contemporary world. Philosophy is having no real task before it. For example, what Linguistic Philosophy has assigned task to Philosophy is just to do ``linguistic analysis of words of language`` with the view to refine or clarify already available concepts. I was also inspired by the works of Pakistani writer Syed Ali Abbas Jalapuri. He also assigns very limited task to philosophy which is to just determine the social values in the light of scientific discoveries. I am having the opinion that to discover new ideas and theories is actually the task of philosophy and not the task of science. Science only experimentally verifies the philosophical discoveries. Galileo only had experimentally verified already established Greek Philosophical views. Johannas Kapler also just experimentally verified philosophical type views of Copernicus. Michealsons and Morley just had experimentally verified already established philosophical type view about the existence of ``Eather``. The same experiment later on served as the foundation stone of Einstien`s ``Special Theory of Relativity``.

Currently, Philosophers all over the world are preaching the false idea that we should stop thinking and should do only experiments without any prior thinking. I am having the view that we should not stop thinking because we can think. Our thinking still can produce many new ideas. To be able to `think` is an important faculty of human mind. Humans should pay proper respect to their own unique faculty. Now science openly makes fun of act of thinking by calling it ``arm-chair philosopher`s activity``. Science forgets that Einstien was also an arm-chair thinker. And surely, I had learnt the idea of ``Theoretical Scientist`` out of the writings of Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy. We also should try to know what is thinking? how do we think? what is the process of our thinking? etc. etc. These are the tasks of Philosophy and are not the tasks of Science. Theories come from thinking process and not come from physical laboratories. Human thinking process is different from the process of ``scientific research method``. Thats why, I am against currently established ``scientific research method``. 

And recently I have found some solid points against ``Idealism`` as well.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Contemporary science disregards logic and do not treat logic as integral part of science. Proof is that theory of logic is not the part of syllabus of science at any level. 

You say there is no conflict between science and philosophy on this issue. I say there is conflict. Why science disregards theory of logic and why discriminate logic by not making it the part of its syllabus? 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [...] -- mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in "Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245) -- [...]

Science is very much confused. If only mathematical considerations should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? See that the proposed function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of any hypothesis. Also note that ``hypothesis`` itself has not come from mathematics because function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of an already available hypothesis. If ``hypothesis`` has not come from ``mathematics``, then it might have come from sources other than mathematics. So what can be the sources other than mathematics...??? Obviously, other sources can be philosophies or even theologies. But if hypothesis itself can come from philosophies and theologies, then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? Is the generation of hypothesis not the part of scientific investigation process...??? 

Secondly, the quoted statement is saying that ``hypothesis`` and ``deductions`` therefrom must stand the empirical test. Now I ask to please try to find where the ``mathematics`` has gone from all the scientific investigation process. See that ``hypothesis`` itself had not come from mathematics. Secondly ``deductions out of hypothesis`` may not involve any mathematics because meaning of ``deduction`` is the result of ``deductive logic`` and not the result of ``mathematics``.

True logical meanings of this quoted statement itself are that hypothesis must come from sources other than mathematics i.e. may be philosophies or even theologies. Then this hypothesis should go through the process of ``deduction`` (i.e. logic and not mathematics). Then that original hypothesis and results of ``deduction`` should go through the process of empirical test. Now my question is that where mathematics has gone from all this process...???.

True process is actually something like this: At first theologies invoke philoisophies. Then philosophies give birth to many hypothesis. Some of the hypothesises (i.e. not all) may involve quantitative relationships between interrelated variables. Mathematics has to deal only with such hypothesis which involve quantitative relationships between variables. For example, Newton`s first law of motion is such a hypothesis which does not involve aqny quantitative relationship between variables. So there is no application of mathematics in first law of motion. But second law of motion involves quantitative and ``measured`` study of interrelated variables. So only here mathematics comes to scene in the form of equation: ``F = ma``.

Stage of empirical verification may come before works of mathematics or can come after it. For example ``rate of acceleration`` is not possible to calculate without any empirical test. So for the case of second law of motion, empirical verification stage might have come before the mathematical works. The next stage should be the ``logical interpretation`` of results of empirical test. This stage is badly missing in contemporary scientific research procedures.

Mathematics is just a portion of logic. It is the logic of numbers and measurements. Science bb is ignoring logic and emphasizing on mathematics. Only a part is like the whole for this science.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------  

 [...]Kepler broke radically from authority and tradition by utilizing the ellipse (as opposed to a composition of circular motions) and non-uniform velocities. He hewed firmly to the position that scientific investigations are independent of all philosophical and theological doctrines, that mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in "Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245)[...]

It is a huge intellectual mistake to think as if scientific investigations are independent of Philosophical or even Theological ideas or doctrines. Kepler himself had given supporting mathematical explanations to some of already existing philosophical views of Copernicus as well. Micheal Farady is good example who had found the principle of Dynmo despite the fact that he was even uneducated of mathematics. He was a poor book binder and he had studied somewhat about Electricity out of those books which he used to bind. Even Einstien was not any expert mathematician at the time when he got popularity. He had learnt detailed mathematics at the time when he was already popular. Contemporary science is very much indebted to ancient as well as modern Philosophy. Both ancient and modern Philosophies are very much indebted to theologies. Science absorbs all the benefits out of theologies and philosophies in such a way that science itself remains unaware of this absorption. Science is very useful because it has invented many useful things. But science is ignorant because it is unaware about its own sources of origin.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

``David Hume wrote about divinity and metaphysics as follows: 

[...]``If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.`` 

Blind faith is risky, to say the least.``[...]

Anyways, I always use to smile whenever I happen to see this famous quotation by David Hume. This quotation itself doesn`t contain any such rational reasoning which can have anything to do with quantity or number. It also doesn`t contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence.

Anyhow, there is nothing solid on which to agree with David Hume on this issue.

******
 End.

[Satisfied?] [And, please do share if your views conflict with given ones.]