JackC 0 #151 July 22, 2009 QuoteCmon man! Lets fuckin roll. Let's not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #152 July 22, 2009 Fair enough. I really enjoyed talkin with you guys though. Arguing on the internet may make you a retard, but I find it very therapeutic. I hope it does for you guys too. Im sure it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #153 July 22, 2009 Oh yea, you guys put up a pretty good fight too. (Well, due to the complexity of your responses) I have found quite a few intelligent posters in this forum, probably of a higher ratio than I have found in others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #154 July 22, 2009 Quote BL: Religion = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions Science = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions (The assumption that this realm of sense-perception is the true world; Although the probability that it is the realm of Actuality is quite high, it is not something we can attach certainty to) QuoteQuoteYes, really. The forced component is a false parallelism w/r/t asserted equivalency of irrationality. Then it wouldn't be a forced dichotomy. It would be a false parallelism. Yes, it is that too. QuoteIf religious folks are irrational in the belief of a "God" Then Scientists are irrational in the disbelief of a "God" If those are your stipulations then the inus is on you to show them. First, is either belief irrational? Second, do either groups exhibit the stipulated beliefs? If either (or both) are false, the assertion is false. And at least you’re referring to scientists rather than “science” now. The asserted equivalency does seem to have changed from the original version, which is quoted above. Are you trying to prove or disprove the existence of “a ‘God’” now? QuoteQuoteHeck, both of those encourage outright skepticism. How does that change the notion that they depend on faith, again? It doesn’t. It demonstrates that skepticism and religion can co-exist. That neither are mutually exclusive. QuoteQuoteScience is a process (or methodology) by which positivists explore the knowable/testable world. Knowable is a bit of a stretch, huh? No. Science only applies to those parts of the world that is knowable. If it’s not knowable one can’t use the method (science) to study or know of it. It’s tautological. For example, before Galileo viewed the Jovian moons through his telescope did they still exist? Yes. We didn’t have tools to see them. That didn’t mean they didn’t exist before the 1600s. The existence of the Jovian moons wasn’t ‘knowable’ by scientific methods (public, repeatable, pertaining to physical world) before that. A positivist could speculate (anyone can speculate with varying levels of physical rationality or irrationality underlying the speculation) but couldn’t assert with confidence before the observations. When there’s new data, the model gets revised. QuoteQuoteThe specific nanometer (nm) wavelength of light absorbed changes depending on whether oxygen or cyanide is bonded to the iron atom Unfortunately those all "exist" in the empirical world. You can't use the empirical world as proof that there are undoubtable things in the empirical world. I find the real existence of cooperative binding of oxygen to hemoglobin and myoglobin to be a very, very fortunate thing. Respiration and a whole host of other physiological processes suffer without it. No one, afaik, is trying to use “the empirical world as proof that there are undoubtable things in the empirical world.” From your posts, you seem to be arguing for a subjective perspective on the world, e.g., “assumptions” —again, please correct me if that’s wrong, but your posts in this thread have been very hard to follow. QuoteI guess you will have to show me where I said a person's perspective has bearing on actuality. Shit, I didn't. It is another crazy assumption to say that actuality depends on your perspective. That much is easily disprovable. Given your empirical assumptions, that much is even more disprovable. Please see your quoted dichotomy w/r/t differing assumptions between religion and science. You’ve been given an example in which assumptions don’t change the physical reality. QuoteDoes it change the fact that science relies on irrational assumptions, as does religion? What are these irrational assumptions? Asserting something repeatedly doesn’t make it true. And remember, if it’s outside the realm of the physical universe, science is not the appropriate method. QuoteQuoteThe underlying reasons for the differences in precision are not the same, i.e., not equivalent or equal. Philosophically, the criterion I am using for "knowing" are the same here. They are both applicable in epistemic terms. That is all I need. What are those criterion? Or have you redefined “knowing” to suit the hypothesis you assert? If “knowing” is something that only *you* need (& perhaps only you know the definition of (?)), than it is outside the realm of science. That’s the realm of the metaphysical. To give a trivial example: like debating whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. What’s important for one person in choosing ice cream flavors may be different than someone else. That’s not the realm of science. QuoteQuoteThe underlying reasons for the differences in precision are not the same, i.e., not equivalent or equal. However, the guage I am using (Certainty) is applicable to both religious and empirical assumptions. You can't quite be certain in either realm given the limitations of our sense experiences and the limited supply of evidence we have to come to such a necessary conclusion. You’re right to some extent. No one can be absolutely certain that tomorrow the sun will appear to rise in the east. Nor can I be absolutely certain that tomorrow morning I won’t wake up and be 5’10.” Based on knowledge of basic causal mechanisms and processes of astrophysics and physiology, I can be pretty gosh-darned certain that the sun will appear to rise in the east and that I won’t gain 5” in height while sleeping. Those hypotheses can also be tested. Including by someone else independently and repeatedly. And the results can be shared in a verifiable way. It's like testing that gravity won't work one time when you skydive. Religious or spiritual experiences aren't subject to public, repeatable verifiable tests and causal mechanisms. And one might consider whether or not they should be? For some it seems to matter a lot. For others less so. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #155 July 22, 2009 Quote The more you learn, the less you know. You also get to a level where you realize nobody else does either... Is the wisdom in knowing when to tell the difference? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #156 July 22, 2009 Quotepersonally? my moral motivation is recollection of my Dad kicking my ass if I didn't act morally stimulating a conditioned response well into my adulthood - one of the best techniques yet invented by mankind Deterrence, eh? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #157 July 22, 2009 Quote Quote The more you learn, the less you know. You also get to a level where you realize nobody else does either... Is the wisdom in knowing when to tell the difference? /Marg It's not called a BS degree for nothing... PHD - Piled Higher Deeper Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #158 July 22, 2009 Quote Quote The more you learn, the less you know. You also get to a level where you realize nobody else does either... Is the wisdom in knowing when to tell the difference? /Marg Which, put another way, says that the less you learn the more you think you know.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #159 July 22, 2009 Marg, I think you are arguing with a pure existentialist (experiential? not sure of the terms here, i admit), and my suspicion is he will say that no, the jovian moons did NOT exist until we "observed" them. I am sure i could be wrong, but after putting together all of his posts, this seems to be a description of his underlying personal philosophy. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? Cliche, perhaps, but this particular philosophy that answers the question with an emphatic "no" is very difficult to reconcile with the empirical evidence that yes, the tree hitting the ground creates sound waves, thus creating a sound. As you can probably tell from my tone, i think this particular philosophical bent is, to put it bluntly, pure bunk, however, i will freely admit that i don't have the philosophical education to effectively argue against it. My brain is bouncing around the ideas that the existentialist ideas are as much of an "irrational" belief as religion (or science, according to chasteh), but i don't know how to nail it down right now. this is not a PA, just a funny: i'm thinking of the old joke right now about what did the philosophy major say after graduation? A: Would you like fries with that? (please no offense...if i could have minored in it, i probably would have)Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #160 July 22, 2009 QuoteQuotepersonally? my moral motivation is recollection of my Dad kicking my ass if I didn't act morally stimulating a conditioned response well into my adulthood - one of the best techniques yet invented by mankind Deterrence, eh? /Marg yup - good concept for personal training (how to learn what choice to make before you act), bad concept for justice (meeting the consequences of those action after the fact) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #161 July 22, 2009 QuoteMarg, I think you are arguing with a pure existentialist (experiential? not sure of the terms here, i admit), and my suspicion is he will say that no, the jovian moons did NOT exist until we "observed" them. Existentialism doesn't necessarily deny physical reality as far as I am aware. It's applying the philosophical method to the appropriate realm, imo. I think the works of Heidegger, Barthes, Sartre, etc are _really_ interesting. QuoteIf a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? Cliche, perhaps, but this particular philosophy that answers the question with an emphatic "no" is very difficult to reconcile with the empirical evidence that yes, the tree hitting the ground creates sound waves, thus creating a sound. As you can probably tell from my tone, i think this particular philosophical bent is, to put it bluntly, pure bunk, however, i will freely admit that i don't have the philosophical education to effectively argue against it. What you've described sounds more like post-modern deconstructionism to me. Honestly, I'm not really sure what [chasteh]'s argument is. I can ask questions but I don't seem to be communicating well to get responses that illuminate that argument. Post-modern deconstructionalism (part of literary theory) was popular in the 1980s and 1990s. It challenged the objectivity of *everything.* Eventually these folks invoked superficial notions on quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and string theory. And they started pontificating (intentional choice of word with religious connotation) about the ‘subjectivity’ of science. Again, one can find examples (too many im-ever-ho) of the intentional mis-use of science for profit, greed, or harm … but that’s the humans not the science. The ‘subjectivity of science’ argument exploded (metaphorically) when an intentionally farcical article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," by a well-regarded, award-winning physicist, Prof Alan D. Sokol (NYU), was published in the leading cultural studies journal with such absurdities such as "pi is an integer.” I heartily agree, which is not in any apparent conflict to me with existentialism, that one cannot approach human interactions as one approaches a scientific inquiry. And I wouldn’t want to either. Whereas there’s a tremendous amount of science behind aircraft engineering, atmospheric fluid dynamics, and canopy design, what compels one to skydive does not need to be within the realm of science. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #162 July 22, 2009 >If those are your stipulations then the inus is on you to show them. >First, is either belief irrational? Are they rational? >Second, do either groups exhibit the stipulated beliefs? Religion: Depends on the assumption that God exists. Science: In this case, depends on the assumption that the empirical world is real, and that we can obtain actual information about it. >If either (or both) are false, the assertion is false. Doesn't look like they are false. Both science and religion depend on assumptions that cannot be proven by us. One tends to be more dogmatic in its approach than the other. >And at least you’re referring to scientists rather than “science” now. Use them interchangably, if you wish. >The asserted equivalency does seem to have changed from the original version, which is quoted above. Are you trying to prove or disprove the existence of “a ‘God’” now? No. I am saying doing so with science and religion will never be achieved. "If religious folks are irrational in the belief of a "God" Then Scientists are irrational in the disbelief of a "God"" I also said: "What is naive of scientists is linking their discoveries within the sensible world as actuality. That m uch is not provable. It is naive to say that it is actuality when you cannot prove it." >It doesn’t. It demonstrates that skepticism and religion can co-exist. That neither are mutually exclusive. Youll have to show me where I said that skepticism and religion can't co-exist. Oh yea, and do you remember this: "Sure. It's just that many of their churches don't encourage or even permit "testing" of any sort. That sounds more like bondage to authority than religious love." I recall saying: "Do you need more examples of statements among religions that are both stated by the religions themselves and mutually exclusive?" in response to another post, if that is what you have a problem with. My comments on mutual exclusivity were a bit different were they not? >Science only applies to those parts of the world that is knowable. Oops! Think BIV scenario. Shit. >If it’s not knowable one can’t use the method (science) to study or know of it. Bullshit. You can still use induction to say that you are 99% sure, for example, that the empirical world is real. However, Knowledge or certainty do not come in degrees, therefore, you cannot say you "know" it. You can still use the scientific method to constructively assess, research, and develop within the realm and not be 100% sure that it is real. >For example, before Galileo viewed the Jovian moons through his telescope did they still exist? Yes. hehe. IF the empirical world is indeed real. Read Schopenhauer's World and Will as Representation, or really any of the modern philosophical writings. This is still highly debatable, with possible alternatives, therefore you cannot be certain of such masses. >We didn’t have tools to see them. That didn’t mean they didn’t exist before the 1600s. Right. That doesn't mean that having tools to "see" what you refer to as "them" exist either. You have inductive probability on your side, not deductive certainty. I still admit the empiricist is PROBABLY right, but I cannot say it with certainty, thus I cannot KNOW. >The existence of the Jovian moons wasn’t ‘knowable’ by scientific methods (public, repeatable, pertaining to physical world) before that.... and so on... You still are speaking science-talk. Please go read up on BIV scenarios. Your not eliminating the possibility that this is all wrong. You need to eliminate the BIV scenario as a possibility to claim certainty about the physical world. We are not discussing certainty given the world being real, which is what your still lost discussing here. Stop it. >For example, before Galileo viewed the Jovian moons through his telescope did they still exist? Yes. Oh yea, I NEVER claimed that truth EVER depended on your perspective, or the limiatations of your perspective. Stop it. I said that you cannot come to certainty by the limitations of "us" and our "experiences." I NEVER said that actuality depends on your view. UGGHH!!! >I find the real existence of cooperative binding of oxygen to hemoglobin and myoglobin to be a very, very fortunate thing. Respiration and a whole host of other physiological processes suffer without it. BIV. End. >please correct me if that’s wrong, but your posts in this thread have been very hard to follow "afaik" As far as I am concerned they do. I guess thats where we split ways, Nerdgirl. BIV. Go read about BIV's please. >You’ve been given an example in which assumptions don’t change the physical reality. For the love of God, are you reading? Look at what you quoted: "It is another crazy assumption to say that actuality depends on your perspective." Therefore, by my assertion that such an assumption is crazy, I do not endorse it. I am saying nothing of the sort! Again! >What are these irrational assumptions? That the empirical world is the actual and only world. "Science only applies to those parts of the world that is knowable." - from your own post. >Asserting something repeatedly doesn’t make it true. Excellent. I definitely am not banking on repeated assertions. Are you? I am well aware of such a rhetorical fallacy. (Blasted rhetorical fallacies, being the foundation for an entire subject in philosophy) >And remember, if it’s outside the realm of the physical universe, science is not the appropriate method Thank God. (Oh man what a pun) >What are those criterion? Or have you redefined “knowing” to suit the hypothesis you assert? The most common from of traditional "knowledge," as defined in epistemology, will suit well. JTB perhaps. Certainty is really all I am concerned with. Certainty meaning JTB that cannot possibly be false. >than it is outside the realm of science. That’s the realm of the metaphysical. Not when science conerns itself with searching for truth. >To give a trivial example: like debating whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. Heh. Yea, as if knowledge were actually dependent on something such as preference. Please. >What’s important for one person in choosing ice cream flavors may be different than someone else. Well thank you for that insight. Ill write that one down for later. >That’s not the realm of science. Ook. (Tangent: Actually, for psychologists and nutritionists it is- but what the hell) >You’re right to some extent. No one can be absolutely certain that tomorrow the sun will appear to rise in the east. Nor can I be absolutely certain that tomorrow morning I won’t wake up and be 5’10.” Precisely. This is the little room I am banking on, but nevertheless can use to say that you can't know that science tests the "actual physical world" or that religious people are "right" when they infer that God exists. >I can be pretty gosh-darned certain that the sun will appear to rise in the east and that I won’t gain 5” in height while sleeping No, you cannot be "pretty certain." You have inductive strength. In this case, we are just arguing the meaning of the terms and what symbol is appropriate. You get my point. >Those hypotheses can also be tested. Ok maybe yo don't get my point. They can be tested, but not with complete certainty. You may claim "I will wake up tomarrow 5 10" but to be believe it as true is to leave room for being false, which means you can't be certain of it. >And the results can be shared in a verifiable way. It's like testing that gravity won't work one time when you skydive. If the empirical world will continue into the marrow, then we can infer that it will be there and gravity will work. However, we cannot claim the antecedent of that statement. >Religious or spiritual experiences aren't subject to public, repeatable verifiable tests and causal mechanisms. Sure they are, you just don't get anywhere with scientific measurements of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #163 July 22, 2009 >Marg, I think you are arguing with a pure existentialist (experiential? not sure of the terms here, i admit), and my suspicion is he will say that no, the jovian moons did NOT exist until we "observed" them. That is absolutely absurd. Such a thing is easily disprovable. As far as existentialism goes, I am not quite sure about it. I have much more to study and think about before I claim my position, much less label myself so that you all can use the same rubber-stamp arguments against me. >this seems to be a description of his underlying personal philosophy. I couldn't tell you, because I haven't decided what to think myself. I can give you a long list of the problems I find in other perspectives, though. Why dont we start with science? I already have. Religion? Already did. >If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? What is "sound?" Are we assuming that the empirical world is real? We need to be more specific. I, however, will admit to you that I think that things (whatever those are) exist (in whatever form) independent of perspectives. >Cliche, perhaps, but this particular philosophy that answers the question with an emphatic "no" is very difficult to reconcile with the empirical evidence that yes, the tree hitting the ground creates sound waves, thus creating a sound. Again, I have said no such thing! >As you can probably tell from my tone, i think this particular philosophical bent is, to put it bluntly, pure bunk, Well the one you thought I endorsed sure is. >however, i will freely admit that i don't have the philosophical education to effectively argue against it. Fair enough. >My brain is bouncing around the ideas that the existentialist ideas are as much of an "irrational" belief as religion (or science, according to chasteh), but i don't know how to nail it down right now. Yea that much is possible. You'll have to show me where I consider myself an existentialist again. >this is not a PA, just a funny: i'm thinking of the old joke right now about what did the philosophy major say after graduation? A: Would you like fries with that? (please no offense...if i could have minored in it, i probably would have) There are a ton of good ones. Oh hey look there are two philosophy majors. I wonder if they share the same shopping cart? Hah! No need to wonder. I am a Flight Instructor. Philosophy is just for fun. edit: ...and my plan for world domination. *Cough* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #164 July 23, 2009 QuoteIn that case, logic would be subordinate to science. As far as I'm concerned, logic is subordinate to science. Like it or not, we live in the empirical world and if philosophy and logic cannot tell me anything truthful about the empirical world then engaging in it is nothing more than mental masturbation, of no practical use whatsoever. I don't care what your theory is, if it doesn't match experiment it's wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #165 July 23, 2009 >As far as I'm concerned, logic is subordinate to science. Unfortunately, "as far as I am concerned" doesn't cut it bucko. You need a little bit more unput than: "Well shucks, I think logic is subordinate to science." >Like it or not, we live in the empirical world You only have inductive probability with such a claim, dude. >if philosophy and logic cannot tell me anything truthful about the empirical world then engaging in it is nothing more than mental masturbation IF philosophy and logic cannot tell you anything about the empirical world? Do you know anything about electronics? Do you know anything about computer programming? Likely no, because you would'nt be able to do anything in those fields without the use of logic. The same goes for physics, for astronomy (think Aristotle.). Do you not realize that logic is what forced Copernicus to realize that the phases of venus were incompatible (thus logically inconsistent) with an Earth-centered Universe? (edit: Galileo confirmed it, Copernicus hypothesized it) Uh oh. Looks like the empirical world really is subordinate to logic after all. Shit. Lets go back to your hypothetical case. >if philosophy and logic cannot tell me anything truthful about the empirical world then engaging in it is nothing more than mental masturbation, of no practical use whatsoever IF ~L > (E & ~P) Unfortunately for you, the antecedent is false. Logic and philosophy can tell you something truthful about the empirical world, and they indeed force the empirical world to remain consistent with itself. Shit. >then engaging in it is nothing more than mental masturbation, of no practical use whatsoever Not necessarily, especially since your antecedent is false. Shit. >I don't care what your theory is, if it doesn't match experiment it's wrong. Ok. Where have you, even once, shown this? I have several examples indicating your theory is false. Cmon man. Give me SOMETHING interesting to fight here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #166 July 23, 2009 Look, knock off the condecending attitude. It's not big or clever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #167 July 23, 2009 QuoteLook, knock off the condecending attitude. It's not big or clever. It's OK, using the Rehmwa criterion you are well in the lead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #168 July 23, 2009 >It's not big or clever. Correct. I'm still waiting for your response, so I admit guilt of adopting big-man-itis for a little bit. (edit:) Your turn! "And with that, anything you think you know has to dissapear into a puff of your own logic." Uh oh! >I don't care what your theory is, if it doesn't match experiment it's wrong. Sort of. Why don't we start by showing where the theory is wrong? We can even leave the issue of the possibility of BIV scenarios to let you "prove" where this has occured. Show me where science has proven logic wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #169 July 23, 2009 >It's OK, using the Rehmwa criterion you are well in the lead. Explain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #170 July 23, 2009 Quote>It's OK, using the Rehmwa criterion you are well in the lead. Explain. Pragmatism combined with the "it's none of my business what your beliefs are" point of view trumps hypotheticals and mental self gratification ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #171 July 23, 2009 Yet it doesn't achieve the goal that science may be studying something that isn't real, and that religion also believes in something that isn't real. It also doesn't negate my thesis. Whatever inductive strength you guys are relying on, it doesn't complete the argument. That is all I need. Also, I have further interest in being proven that Logic is inferior to science, and that logic can be disproven by science. It would be neat to see you guys find a situation where science disproves logic, and then negate the statement "science is inferior to logic" without using logic. I'll save him some time. You can't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #172 July 23, 2009 i must be stupid...because i don't get you. so once more...are you hypothesizing that the empirical world IS NOT REAL?Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #173 July 23, 2009 Quotei must be stupid...because i don't get you. so once more...are you hypothesizing that the empirical world IS NOT REAL? He's using the ambiguities of language in a logical argument to suggest there may be more to reality than we can ever hope to perceive and challenging us to prove that's not the case. Great. Whatever. Just because I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist doesn't mean he does.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #174 July 23, 2009 Oh i know what he's doing. So it's time to devolve the "argument" into simple yes or no questions.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #175 July 23, 2009 >i must be stupid...because i don't get you No, your not stupid. I enjoyed your responses, and think you are intelligent. Just a little bit off track, is all. >so once more...are you hypothesizing that the empirical world IS NOT REAL? Absolutely not. I am saying that it is still possible for the empirical world to not be real, and that possibility eliminates science's ability being able to make deductively valid arguements concerning actuality and the "truths" it stipulates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
