Scientism, Skepticism and the Philosophy of Science

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I love how the religious folk have tried to turn “science” into a religion. Its not. Their problem is they cant understand simple concepts like that, and want to say “You’re just as bad as me!”

The nonsense goes: “You’re no better than me, my religion is christianity and your religion is science! You worship science!”

Uh, no. Science is the process of observing, hypothesizing, and testing. The goal is to understand the world around us better.

Religion is the process of ingesting fairytale nonsense, building an identity around it, and practicing confirmation bias in order to protect it.

So, no, science is not a religion and “believing in science” is nowhere near “believing in God”[/quote]

Science provides a reliable method for testing the accuracy of predictions. Religion provides nothing more than wishful thinking. Religion comes in two flavors. Either it dismisses logic and evidence as “sinful, fallen man thinking” (ala Tiribulus) OR it claims to be based on objective evidence, but is never able to reliably deliver on those claims (ala Pat and Brother Chris).
[/quote]

To deliver what?

[/quote]

To deliver reliable proof that their claims about the objective universe are fact rather than fiction.

22

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Starting with an unproven assumption, and refusing to acknowledge the possibility that the assumption is false, is not what I would call the relentless pursuit of knowledge.[/quote]So when are you gonna knock it off?
[/quote]

Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.

In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.

23

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

Free will transcends individual human action. That human beings act proves that free will exists. No human action could occur with out it.

24

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.

In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]Wel bles yer littul ol hart. Yoo sher straytined me rite owt. Try that with something a bit more foundational there sporty. I’ve already stated one million times that the remaining image of God in fallen man affords him of much in the way of formal truth. It’s his suppression of that truth in a concerted campaign of overt rebellion against his creator in an effort to escape moral responsibility to Him that’s at issue.

Tell me about the origin of the laws of logic. Non contradiction. The one and the many. Stuff like mathematics and empirical events are about 5 stories up from there. The bedrock is where all that gets it’s meaning.

25

[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]Autonomous man in all his glory =]

26

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]

Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.

Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]

Free will transcends individual human action. That human beings act proves that free will exists. No human action could occur with out it.[/quote]

Why isn’t it that gravitational forces acting proves that free will exists? Humans are special and science cannot explain why.

27

As soon as we accept human free will, then we can judge the morality of humans. When we judge human choices we imply a moral standard. When we accept the existence of a moral standard, we have to ask from where it comes.

28

Can we through science explore any other reality than our own? Can we see or understand things as they are in themselves, more so than an ant can understand the workings of man? Our reality is the result of sensory input being organized by our brains. For example, euclidean space does not necessarily exist beyond our perception. Sure, it exists as some metaphysical input, but what we can observe and explore through science may very well be the product of a certain type of neurons (grid cells) that produce Kantian apriori space. In other words, we are the ones projecting space, and not the other way around. This begs the question; can scientists ever explore anything else than their own consciousness?

Science works in practice, and we can use it for our benefit. Newtonian laws and chemistry work in laboratory settings, but are not necessarily descriptive of how nature works on all levels, without us, as per quantum mechanics. Whenever science attempts to explain Truth with a capital T, and things as they exist in themselves, it must assume that we are somehow unlimited in our capacity to understand. What constitutes the metaphysical “realm” may very well enter our consciousness so that we can make some sense of it, but only on our own terms. Imagine a three dimensional man touching a world with two dimensional inhabitants. The 2D people will only see an imprint. In their limited reality, they make calculations on the third dimension based on this imprint, maybe in the same way we would treat something like eternity (or even time). They can only understand it on their own terms, but they can never realize the essence of what three dimensions constitute. Anything beyond belongs to the realm of belief. Saying anything about the reality that exists beyond us is pure belief. There is nothing wrong with belief.

29

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.

In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]Wel bles yer littul ol hart. Yoo sher straytined me rite owt. Try that with something a bit more foundational there sporty. I’ve already stated one million times that the remaining image of God in fallen man affords him of much in the way of formal truth. It’s his suppression of that truth in a concerted campaign of overt rebellion against his creator in an effort to escape moral responsibility to Him that’s at issue.

Tell me about the origin of the laws of logic. Non contradiction. The one and the many. Stuff like mathematics and empirical events are about 5 stories up from there. The bedrock is where all that gets it’s meaning.
[/quote]

In other words, since you can’t produce similar reliable proof for your emotional beliefs, the best you can do is poetically blather.

I’ll take the objectively proven light switch, thanks.

30

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.

In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]Wel bles yer littul ol hart. Yoo sher straytined me rite owt. Try that with something a bit more foundational there sporty. I’ve already stated one million times that the remaining image of God in fallen man affords him of much in the way of formal truth. It’s his suppression of that truth in a concerted campaign of overt rebellion against his creator in an effort to escape moral responsibility to Him that’s at issue.

Tell me about the origin of the laws of logic. Non contradiction. The one and the many. Stuff like mathematics and empirical events are about 5 stories up from there. The bedrock is where all that gets it’s meaning.
[/quote]

Assuming that God created logic and mathematics, it doesn’t imply your brand of space monkey is the right one. That is the heart of the issue, not the existence or lack thereof of a divine creator.

31

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.

In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]Wel bles yer littul ol hart. Yoo sher straytined me rite owt. Try that with something a bit more foundational there sporty. I’ve already stated one million times that the remaining image of God in fallen man affords him of much in the way of formal truth. It’s his suppression of that truth in a concerted campaign of overt rebellion against his creator in an effort to escape moral responsibility to Him that’s at issue.

Tell me about the origin of the laws of logic. Non contradiction. The one and the many. Stuff like mathematics and empirical events are about 5 stories up from there. The bedrock is where all that gets it’s meaning.
[/quote]

In other words, since you can’t produce similar reliable proof for your emotional beliefs, the best you can do is poetically blather.

I’ll take the objectively proven light switch, thanks.[/quote]

Poetically? I would have gone with pathetically.

32

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Why isn’t it that gravitational forces acting proces that free will exists? Humans are special and science cannot explain why.[/quote]

Why are human being special? Define your terms.

I am skeptical that gravitation has anything to do with free will. I don’t really even understand what you wrote.

33

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Why isn’t it that gravitational forces acting proces that free will exists? Humans are special and science cannot explain why.[/quote]

Why are human being special? Define your terms.

I am skeptical that gravitation has anything to do with free will. I don’t really even understand what you wrote.[/quote]

Special in that they can make conscious non-random choices/have free will

You wrote that human action proves free will. I meant why doesn’t the action of a non-human force or object prove free will?

34

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.

In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]Wel bles yer littul ol hart. Yoo sher straytined me rite owt. Try that with something a bit more foundational there sporty. I’ve already stated one million times that the remaining image of God in fallen man affords him of much in the way of formal truth. It’s his suppression of that truth in a concerted campaign of overt rebellion against his creator in an effort to escape moral responsibility to Him that’s at issue.

Tell me about the origin of the laws of logic. Non contradiction. The one and the many. Stuff like mathematics and empirical events are about 5 stories up from there. The bedrock is where all that gets it’s meaning.
[/quote]

Assuming that God created logic and mathematics, it doesn’t imply your brand of space monkey is the right one. That is the heart of the issue, not the existence or lack thereof of a divine creator.[/quote]

What are these different “brands” of monotheistic Divine Creators that have existed in cultures throughout our recorded history? You make it seem like there are so many. Please give me a lesson, and show that these different “brands” are not merely interpretations or offshoots from a common source. For example, if you use Hinduism as an example, you should acknowledge that Hindusm is quite likely a product of the merging between the monotheistic aryan teachings and the pagan culture they came across when they settled in India. What are the “brands” that remain to this date?

35

[quote]eraserhead wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.

In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]Wel bles yer littul ol hart. Yoo sher straytined me rite owt. Try that with something a bit more foundational there sporty. I’ve already stated one million times that the remaining image of God in fallen man affords him of much in the way of formal truth. It’s his suppression of that truth in a concerted campaign of overt rebellion against his creator in an effort to escape moral responsibility to Him that’s at issue.

Tell me about the origin of the laws of logic. Non contradiction. The one and the many. Stuff like mathematics and empirical events are about 5 stories up from there. The bedrock is where all that gets it’s meaning.
[/quote]

Assuming that God created logic and mathematics, it doesn’t imply your brand of space monkey is the right one. That is the heart of the issue, not the existence or lack thereof of a divine creator.[/quote]

What are these different “brands” of monotheistic Divine Creators that have existed in cultures throughout our recorded history? You make it seem like there are so many. Please give me a lesson, and show that these different “brands” are not merely interpretations or offshoots from a common source. For example, if you use Hinduism as an example, you should acknowledge that Hindusm is quite likely a product of the merging between the monotheistic aryan teachings and the pagan culture they came across when they settled in India. What are the “brands” that remain to this date? [/quote]

Seriously? Are you this dumb?

For example, if you use Christianity as an example, you should acknowledge that Christianity is quite likely a product of the merging of Judaism and pagan mythology common to the areas the Roman empire covered when it was formed. There is no reason to give any more or any less credibility to any myth that has no factual evidence to support it.

36

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]eraserhead wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.

In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]Wel bles yer littul ol hart. Yoo sher straytined me rite owt. Try that with something a bit more foundational there sporty. I’ve already stated one million times that the remaining image of God in fallen man affords him of much in the way of formal truth. It’s his suppression of that truth in a concerted campaign of overt rebellion against his creator in an effort to escape moral responsibility to Him that’s at issue.

Tell me about the origin of the laws of logic. Non contradiction. The one and the many. Stuff like mathematics and empirical events are about 5 stories up from there. The bedrock is where all that gets it’s meaning.
[/quote]

Assuming that God created logic and mathematics, it doesn’t imply your brand of space monkey is the right one. That is the heart of the issue, not the existence or lack thereof of a divine creator.[/quote]

What are these different “brands” of monotheistic Divine Creators that have existed in cultures throughout our recorded history? You make it seem like there are so many. Please give me a lesson, and show that these different “brands” are not merely interpretations or offshoots from a common source. For example, if you use Hinduism as an example, you should acknowledge that Hindusm is quite likely a product of the merging between the monotheistic aryan teachings and the pagan culture they came across when they settled in India. What are the “brands” that remain to this date? [/quote]

Seriously? Are you this dumb?

For example, if you use Christianity as an example, you should acknowledge that Christianity is quite likely a product of the merging of Judaism and pagan mythology common to the areas the Roman empire covered when it was formed. There is no reason to give any more or any less credibility to any myth that has no factual evidence to support it.[/quote]

Maybe you missed my point. I asked you to tell me about the different monotheistic “brands” that are not interpretations or offshoots from a common source, yet you refer to the Jewish heritage in Christianity in an attempt to mock me. Even if parts of Christianity are a result of a merging of Judaism and Roman paganism, this does not change the fact that we are still talking about the Abrahamic God.

Edit: Nevermind. It’s clear we are thinking in different lines, and I see very little chance of this discussion arriving at something interesting. Why bother.

37

[quote]eraserhead wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]eraserhead wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Last time I checked, the light turned on when I flipped the switch. It would turn on for you too, and for anybody else flipping the switch. And the resulting light is objectively measurable on a spectrometer.

In other words, it’s a fact, not fiction.[/quote]Wel bles yer littul ol hart. Yoo sher straytined me rite owt. Try that with something a bit more foundational there sporty. I’ve already stated one million times that the remaining image of God in fallen man affords him of much in the way of formal truth. It’s his suppression of that truth in a concerted campaign of overt rebellion against his creator in an effort to escape moral responsibility to Him that’s at issue.

Tell me about the origin of the laws of logic. Non contradiction. The one and the many. Stuff like mathematics and empirical events are about 5 stories up from there. The bedrock is where all that gets it’s meaning.
[/quote]

Assuming that God created logic and mathematics, it doesn’t imply your brand of space monkey is the right one. That is the heart of the issue, not the existence or lack thereof of a divine creator.[/quote]

What are these different “brands” of monotheistic Divine Creators that have existed in cultures throughout our recorded history? You make it seem like there are so many. Please give me a lesson, and show that these different “brands” are not merely interpretations or offshoots from a common source. For example, if you use Hinduism as an example, you should acknowledge that Hindusm is quite likely a product of the merging between the monotheistic aryan teachings and the pagan culture they came across when they settled in India. What are the “brands” that remain to this date? [/quote]

Seriously? Are you this dumb?

For example, if you use Christianity as an example, you should acknowledge that Christianity is quite likely a product of the merging of Judaism and pagan mythology common to the areas the Roman empire covered when it was formed. There is no reason to give any more or any less credibility to any myth that has no factual evidence to support it.[/quote]

Maybe you missed my point. I asked you to tell me about the different monotheistic “brands” that are not interpretations or offshoots from a common source, yet you refer to the Jewish heritage in Christianity in an attempt to mock me. Even if parts of Christianity are a result of a merging of Judaism and Roman paganism, this does not change the fact that we are still talking about the Abrahamic God.

Edit: Nevermind. It’s clear we are thinking in different lines, and I see very little chance of this discussion arriving at something interesting. Why bother.[/quote]

Of course we are thinking in different lines. You think because the Abrahamic God is common to many religions it must be true. I see one religion managing to invade the mythos of many.

38

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< In other words, since you can’t produce similar reliable proof for your emotional beliefs, the best you can do is poetically blather.

I’ll take the objectively proven light switch, thanks.[/quote]Your light switch (and every other actual and possible fact) IS MY proof. You stole it from my God and perverted it for your own self exalting purposes. Just like I did only I gave it back when He made it known to me by His unsearchable and everlasting grace and kindness.

39

Why do these threads keep being made? Religion is the only perpetual-motion machine I have ever come across, and it will continue to be so forever. ANY argument can be turned into a counter-argument by a religious argument, as shown by Tiribulus. I could provide complete empirical proof that the laws of the the universe are written by a sheep named Butch in his office in the fifth dimension, and it would be stated that since god created everything, he must have delegated this post to our friendly overlord sheep.

Arguing against religion serves no purpose; if someone is a believer, than it will take more than a well-thought out argument to turn them against their religion. Arguing for religion, on the other hand, serves every purpose in the world. If you fail, you have gained nothing, but you do have a chance to convert someone and gain another member of the flock, accomplishing something great.

A man’s private religion is his own business, and I see no point in calling him out on it or debating it with him. Just please don’t bring out religious dogma every time a political or scientific decision has to be made, facts and facts alone are the bedrock that public policy should be built on, not the words in an old book. Luckily the founding fathers of this country saw that, and did their best to keep private gods out of the public sector.

40

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
As soon as we accept human free will, then we can judge the morality of humans. When we judge human choices we imply a moral standard. When we accept the existence of a moral standard, we have to ask from where it comes.[/quote]

Good stuff, mertdawg. Keep going.