|
magnavox space odyssey posted:You misunderstand me, I'm not saying science is not rigorous or not evidence based, I'm saying the very basis of science, the scientific method, the way we get information and determine the truth, I'm saying that cannot be proven with evidence. How could it? What is truth, how could you test for truth? What is information and why is this method of gaining information better than some other? When you get to the very foundation of the system of science it's not based on evidence, but it's also not based on faith. It's based on thinking about it, but that's all that it is based on, reasoned arguments and thinking up methods on how to achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. Again, its a TOOL, not a religious figure. Nobody is worshiping the scientific method, nor implying that its an unquestionable diety. Why are you even following this train of thought? It makes absolutely no sense. Why are you even pointing out that the method, the tool, is not based on evidence? That has no bearing on science being faith derived. The scientific method is a thought process, a method for finding things out. There's no need to prove it because its not neccessary. Its a flowchart for how to best validate discovery and test things. It makes no sense for you to even comes to this conclusion, its incomparable to what you are trying to compare it to.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
You have to, at some point, accept something as true a priorii. Even if only your own observational capability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again, its a TOOL, not a religious figure. Nobody is worshiping the scientific method, nor implying that its an unquestionable diety. Frankly, the reason why I'm this adamant about it is because I think that not being aware of the limits of the scientific method, of just blindly following science, constitutes to it being then used as faith. And science is not faith and should not be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:All that I'm saying is that science is not the entirety of human thought. Though let's be candid here: in our culture this is where the popular idea about science has been going. I don't have a copy to quote, but I recall at the beginning of The Moral Landscape Sam Harris set his definition of science as effectively everything factual or material, which is broad to the point of becoming meaningless. And any length of time arguing with atheists will bear this out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:The scientific method as well is impossible to prove, This is a nonsense statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Actually you weren't?.. What are you referring to? Of course I wasn't. I've stated here and other places that the individual doesn't matter. Do what you want on your own time. The mass line is where the action is. Religion pulls that line back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Though let's be candid here: in our culture this is where the popular idea about science has been going. I don't have a copy to quote, but I recall at the beginning of The Moral Landscape Sam Harris set his definition of science as effectively everything factual or material, which is broad to the point of becoming meaningless. And any length of time arguing with atheists will bear this out. Yeah, that's why I'm wary about anyone holding up science as some sort of religion, what with considering the very foundations of it being unquestionable. And just like with theists I do not believe most atheists are this obnoxious about it, not that atheism has anything to do with science anyway. Also Sam Harris seems like legitimate trash. Who What Now posted:This is a nonsense statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Rationalism and empiricism are at odds with each other. From a rationalist perspective, you do absolutely have to take some things a priori. So what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Rationalism and empiricism are at odds with each other. From a rationalist perspective, you do absolutely have to take some things a priori. Who What Now posted:No, not exactly, the opposite of exactly. You are not using "prove" in a valid manner here. magnavox space odyssey fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:Well, exactly. You can't prove something using itself, that's my point. You can't use science to prove science, this is an inherent flaw in it. So there's assumptions in it that someone, if they want to be confrontational about it, can say equals "faith". No, not exactly, the opposite of exactly. You are not using "prove" in a valid manner here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:So nothing, there's just flaws in the scientific method, is all. It's not perfect and it cannot determine all things, just the things it was made for. This isn't a flaw in the method, this is PEBKAC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, not exactly, the opposite of exactly. You are not using "prove" in a valid manner here. Seriously, this is what I was saying. He keeps appealing to the scientific method as some sort of 'Look, you can't prove it, ergo Science is based on lack of proof' and it really doesn't work that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Not disagreeing with the actual point, but how consistent is the evidence for the causal role (of cortisol in itself on decision making) here? I googled this and the first two studies I found were: Actually trying to artificially change cortisol levels in a subject and then do risk/reward analysis on their behavior strikes me as possibly inherently flawed. I have no idea what kinds of efficiency you can get for absorbing cortisol (is it real cortisol? manufactured? what vehicle was used to apply it? oral spray? injection? regular pills? how long do you have to wait before it's fully metabolized and will have a noticeable effect?) but that whole thing smacks of sketchy, because I've worked with principle investigators and program managers for probably at least 10-12 grants which involved measuring cortisol levels - it's really commonplace whether you're examining the stress levels of second-generation immigrant children, or the stress levels of a long-term longitudinal study's subjects (one of our grants has been following the same group of boys for like 25 years at this point,) measuring the stress levels of returning veterans who come home to meet their newborn child for the first time while still struggling with PTSD and aggressive/violent outburts while also having them participate in Parenting and Stress Management classes, etc. Artificially adjusting cortisol levels is way outside of the scope of anything we did at my facility. That's much closer to developing and testing new drugs on paid subjects, and there's a pretty good record of those things not always working out so well, or turning out the way you expect, or not accidentally killing people in the study.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:So what does this incomprehensibility have to offer? The original argument was that religion 1) Provided a moral framework 2) provided community and 3) Is hedonic. Now it's "religion is weird and incomprehensible and at odds with life as lived." What does religion have to offer? It's the ultimate fake insurance policy and it only costs 10% of your income a month
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:Yeah, that's why I'm wary about anyone holding up science as some sort of religion, what with considering the very foundations of it being unquestionable. And just like with theists I do not believe most atheists are this obnoxious about it, not that atheism has anything to do with science anyway. The thing about science being anything material and factual well, that's not a bad definition to be fair. It muddies the waters between disciplines a lot, but I can't really fault it that much. It's just being tossed around by a very sneaky person who spends most of his time insulting people. Sam Harris excels on finding air-time on shows and podcasts and stuff and he can spit a good game, usually because the host either isn't willing to antagonize or confront a guest on their show (risking followups, as well as risking turning off other potential guests who hear about it,) they don't actually know much about sam harris aside from the dust jacket of his book, or they're actually an awful lunatic like Joe Rogan, moon landing denier and regular ayahuasca consumer who will just get on their knees and gobble it up while giving the occasional "hi five, bro!" edit: The main difference I'm trying to get at, is that Hitchens turns a lot of people off just because he was a pompous rear end. Harris is charismatic and easy to talk to, and he's really well-practised at selling his party line after all those books saying the same thing. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:Well, exactly. You can't prove something using itself, that's my point. You can't use science to prove science, this is an inherent flaw in it. So there's assumptions in it that someone, if they want to be confrontational about it, can say equals "faith". Why is it important to "prove" the scientific method? What would that proof look like? What does the lack of proof imply, for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
The more challenging idea is that 'assumption = faith'. If you're committed to that idea, then you've subtly changed the meaning of the word 'faith' from what it generally means, to a very specific and abstract meaning, all for purpose of religious apologia. "Well isn't everything faith when you think about it?" Is a really, really dumb reply to the issues brought up against religious belief.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Depends on which issues, if you're arguing against religion because observation-based materialism is the real absolute truth it's certainly a valid rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
You can't prove it enough for people who have faith that it can't be done because god is the real answer. It's just a way to muddy the waters and create false equivalencies as a response when people say "well can you prove that any single thing in the bible actually happened like it said happened?" It's literally "I know you are but what am I!?" level schoolyard argumentation. I'm rubber your glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!  Dr. Fishopolis posted:Why is it important to "prove" the scientific method? What would that proof look like? What does the lack of proof imply, for you? While religion is by its very nature, closed to being challenged. Some people consider this a sign of its inherent strength. "Prove it!" is an old standby of christian pastors, sort of like how so many people believe that they've found the way to create a cold fusion device - because they forgot to flip a sign somewhere in their math and threw out the laws of physics entirely. I've been reading "The Three Body Problem" lately by Cixin Liu, and it explores this idea in-depth. Near the end of the book it explains why things have been so weird on earth - the alien society is literally using their superior knowledge of science to make a new religion on earth, so that they will be welcome as saviors and gods when they finally show up.. But actually all they did was create a quantum computer that hosed up the laws of physics on and near the earth, which ruined the scientific method (it made it so every time you perform an experiment you get a different result, resulting in hundreds of physisicists committing suicide) and thus destabilized all of science and led to people flocking toward religion and authoritarianism since that was the only grounding they had left. "Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" indeed. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends on which issues, if you're arguing against religion because observation-based materialism is the real absolute truth it's certainly a valid rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:That's only if you're taking the meaning of 'real absolute truth' to be 'truth without assumption' which isn't exactly a fair meaning to take, since it's already been taken as impossible. Like interpreting 'this rock is absolutely heavy' as meaning 'its an immovable object' - you could take that meaning, but the only reason you would is to pull a fast one. Well, no it's also true if you're being properly honest about the distinction between reason and observation versus faith as methods of knowing things. One, if understood properly, requires you to accept uncertainty. If you're adopting reason and observation based gnosis out of a desire to attain the truth of things I think you're a bit silly, as to do that you have to accept your observational abilities as being axiomatically truthful and if you're going to do that you might as well just skip the complicated bit and assume you just know everything, it will bring you as much happiness. Reason and observation make the most sense if you're looking to do things with other people, especially if you start from the assumptions that other people are really people and also that interfering with other people (in some way) is a moral imperative, because that's where reality-by-consensus has the least issues. But that doesn't really require a desire for any philosophical truth and, I think, is also entirely compatible with a religious outlook.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The more challenging idea is that 'assumption = faith'. If you're committed to that idea, then you've subtly changed the meaning of the word 'faith' from what it generally means, to a very specific and abstract meaning, all for purpose of religious apologia. "Well isn't everything faith when you think about it?" Is a really, really dumb reply to the issues brought up against religious belief. It's basically an admission of defeat. Making everything equally unconvincing doesn't make religious claims more convincing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, no it's also true if you're being properly honest about the distinction between reason and observation versus faith as methods of knowing things. One, if understood properly, requires you to accept uncertainty. If you're adopting reason and observation based gnosis out of a desire to attain the truth of things I think you're a bit silly, as to do that you have to accept your observational abilities as being axiomatically truthful and if you're going to do that you might as well just skip the complicated bit and assume you just know everything, it will bring you as much happiness. Besides, science isn't about finding the truth, it's about gaining the greatest understand of our world around us and how it actually behaves, and then using that understanding to design systems which we can harness for our own use. You're arguing this from a closed perspective. It's like trying to talk to a priest who believes you can be an agnostic athiest or an agnostic theist, versus gnostic atheist or agnostic atheist... You refuse to even entertain another perspective and measuring everyone else by some arbitrary stuff made up from within a religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:If you're adopting a 2,000 year old book that touts genocide and incest and slavery out of a desire to attain the truth of things I think you're a bit silly. You... can be all of those things though? I mean not simultaneously but you can be all of them individually. I feel like you're starting from the assumption that there is such a thing as absolute truth which, in the same sentence as complaining about my closed perspective. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
This is the thing, you keep "feeling" poo poo. poo poo that isn't true, because YOU keep bringing up "the truth" then pivoting to say it was others who started it. Are you trying to troll or do you not understand this problem? with how you're arguing your point?OwlFancier posted:You... can be all of those things though? I guarantee you're not going to get anywhere saying you can just be a plain old real agnostic who doesn't actually know if god exists or not - so stating that an agnostic must either believe or not believe is fundamentally flawed. But that's how religions measure those they disagree with so welp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Have you ever taken a religious philosophy class taught by a competent priest? Why... can't you not know whether or not god exists..?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why... can't you not know whether or not god exists..?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Okay you're just trolling now or you cannot absorb the point I made. Go google the definiton of agnostic, then look at that link to Robert Flint or GIS "agnostic atheism". You keep throwing around words like "truth" and "gnosis" so I was using similar language as you, on the assumption you actually understand what that language entails. I don't understand what you're saying because as far as I (and google) am aware, the word "agnostic" means either the assertion that the individual does not know the nature or existence, of god, or that the nature or existence of god is absolutely unknowable. Whereas theism/atheism is an expression of personal beliefs about the existence and/or nature of god. So someone can, logically, be atheist and agnostic, espousing no belief in god yet believing that the question is logically impossible to answer with certitude, be atheist and gnostic, espousing that it is absolutely correct that god does not exist, theist and agnostic, espousing that god probably does exist but acknowledging that it is impossible to prove absolutely, or theist and gnostic, espousing that god absolutely exists... Your link just says that the dude existed and worked at a university. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:So nothing, there's just flaws in the scientific method, is all. It's not perfect and it cannot determine all things, just the things it was made for. Also regarding your religion holding the people back: weren't the most gigantic upheavals in history based in societies that were far more religious than most people are today? It's not like union workers in the US were all atheists. I see a lot of questions here as well as some irrelevant assertions. What point are you trying to make?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I see a lot of questions here as well as some irrelevant assertions. It's a well worn argument that basically boils down to "God of the Gaps". Because our imperfect tool of science cannot give full and perfect understanding to imperfect humans, there's always room for God.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:It's a well worn argument that basically boils down to "God of the Gaps". Because our imperfect tool of science cannot give full and perfect understanding to imperfect humans, there's always room for God. It's OK, part of the pathology of Christianity is that it has to reframe everything within the context of itself. You see it in the thread all the time. I'll bring up a structural issue, and they'll try to personalize it. When that doesn't work, they'll try to reframe it as an ad hom. If I were trying to argue for a personal solution to a personal problem, that ad hom would make a lot of sense. But I'm not, it's not so it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It's OK, part of the pathology of Christianity is that it has to reframe everything within the context of itself. Religious people incapable of abstract thought? I'm shocked and dismayed
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It's OK, part of the pathology of Christianity is that it has to reframe everything within the context of itself. You seem to be arguing for a personal solution to a structural problem which might be why you get that response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
How can you believe anything if you can't explain The Crystal Heads? I'm not saying or even suggesting that the Crystal Heads are real. But both science and contemporary religion can't explain the Crystal Heads. In this video, experience with the sublime is clearly discussed. If you haven't had an experience with the divine, I pity you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:How can you believe anything if you can't explain The Crystal Heads? Get outta my face Dan and just let me try the vodka. I'm skeptical of anything provided in a gimmick bottle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
You can try the Crystal Head for only <local price>. Given that pure nordic water has been filtered through the finest white diamonds, don't you feel like that is a steal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
I don't care if they used the Christmas tears of Estonian children and charged whatever amount of small change might be found in an average sofa if the vodka tastes like Popov.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, no it's also true if you're being properly honest about the distinction between reason and observation versus faith as methods of knowing things. One, if understood properly, requires you to accept uncertainty. If you're adopting reason and observation based gnosis out of a desire to attain the truth of things I think you're a bit silly, as to do that you have to accept your observational abilities as being axiomatically truthful and if you're going to do that you might as well just skip the complicated bit and assume you just know everything, it will bring you as much happiness. You seem to be interpreting the search for truth as something having a final goal, and since the final goal is unreachable, it's a pointless thing. That's a really fatalistic and ignorant conception of the search for truth, a better interpretation is to cast it in a similar light as 'progress' - the journey is itself the goal, and refusing to partake in that journey is the what you're judged on, not whether or not you get 'there' (wherever 'there' is). Religious faith, under that scheme (the one I have), is a crime not because it assumes thing, but because it is 'comfortable' in ignorance - you take something as an article of faith, and that's that. Problem is, that's stagnation, death. Life is constant motion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
I am saying that your placement of value in that search is itself an article of faith. In the absence of an absolute truth, all truth and value becomes entirely subjective, as there is no absolute anchor to hold any system absolute. You can try to couch it in whatever language you like but ultimately at some point you have simply picked a preferred aesthetic and pursued it, as everybody does. There is nothing wrong with that, but I see little point trying to argue that your aesthetic is objectively better than another. If you're not fond of "delusion" I would suggest that perhaps you may be happier recognizing that you're picking a side and fighting for it, fundamentally, arbitrarily. And that's fine, but it doesn't change what it is. It seems intellectually dishonest to espouse the value of human reason and then simultaneously express everything in terms that suggest you are either unaware of, or reject, the subjectivty of that reason. "I like my ethics and I will fight you over them because I like doing that" is honest and, I would hope, perfectly adequate justification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
So can we just change the thread title to "Why Do Religions Hate the Left?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 05:33
|
|