User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 88

  1. #31
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I believe it's you that is confusing deductive and inductive reasoning.

    Deductive reasoning is self-verifying utilizing the laws of logic.

    Inductive reasoning requires both the laws of logic and an independent presupposition about the nature of the universe.
    Let's simplify this shall we, we are on a personality forum after all.

    Deductive logic is introverted thinking, how does the world make sense to me?

    Inductive logic is extroverted thinking, how does the world actually work? The entirety of Science is built on the foundation of extroverted logic, i.e. this is evidence that is clearly in front of us, what conclusions can we make about these observations?

    Where religion and spiritualism are based primarily on deductive logic, rationalism and modern science are based primarily on inductive logic.

    People that use deductive logic look at a phenomenon they haven't seen before and conclude immediately what it is based on how it seems to be to them. People that use inductive logic look at a phenomenon they haven't seen before and look at exactly what it is before drawing any conclusions or personal understandings.


    When I see debates, I view them as a chess game. The pieces move around, exchanging, sacrificing, and fortifying. From simply skimming your initial argument with @Mole, I can conclude through this metaphor that Mole has a material advantage, and that you just blocked a check with this hasty move quoted above. You are down as of right now and on the defensive where you initially had the offensive.

  2. #32
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    No, no my dear Beorn, I understand you believe three impossible things before breakfast, and so like a drowning man you clutch at straws, to justify your impossible beliefs.

    And so your first move is to confuse deductive and inductive reasoning.

    And it's a good move because we can't deduce the laws of nature are uniform, however we can induce the laws of nature are uniform to a degree of certainty.

    So we have no presupposition that the laws of nature are uniform, rather we have overwhelming evidence that enables us to induce that the laws of nature are uniform.

    And induction is part of the scientific method.
    I recall the following joke (paraphrased from memory) from the now-defunct GAMES magazine in the early/mid 1980's:
    A layperson, a biologist, a mathematician, and a GAMES magazine enthusiast are on a passenger train going through Nebraska.
    They look out the window to their left and see a black cow grazing in the field.

    The layperson exclaims, "Look! All cows in Nebraska are black!"
    The biologist corrects him, "No, all we know is that all cows in Nebraska on THAT side of the train are black!"
    The mathematician says, "Not quite. What we know is that all cows in Nebraska, on THAT side of the train, are black, on at least one side."
    The GAMES magazine reader says, "You're all wrong. All cows in Nebraska, on THAT side of the train, are black, on at least one side, at least PART OF THE TIME."

    There are levels of evidence, and levels of proof. Scientific proof is weaker than mathematical, yet you are claiming mathematical certainty for experimental results.
    It's more "tidy" and more "satisfying" (it fulfills certain metaphysical assumptions which are comforting) but rigorously justified it is not.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  3. #33
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    You're wrong about that part, as the religions are trying for different things; predate science; and provided the philosophical/metaphysical underpinnings for scientific inquiry.
    Oh please! Religion has given us mysticism, while the Enlightenment gave as evidence and reason, the very basis of science.

    And don't forget, religion fought the Enlightenment all the way.

    And it was only when the Enlightenment overwhelmingly won, the religions sought to steal the kudos from science.

    Gosh, we even have the New Age trying to steal the kudos from Quantum Mechanics today.

  4. #34
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    I recall the following joke (paraphrased from memory) from the now-defunct GAMES magazine in the early/mid 1980's:
    A layperson, a biologist, a mathematician, and a GAMES magazine enthusiast are on a passenger train going through Nebraska.
    They look out the window to their left and see a black cow grazing in the field.

    The layperson exclaims, "Look! All cows in Nebraska are black!"
    The biologist corrects him, "No, all we know is that all cows in Nebraska on THAT side of the train are black!"
    The mathematician says, "Not quite. What we know is that all cows in Nebraska, on THAT side of the train, are black, on at least one side."
    The GAMES magazine reader says, "You're all wrong. All cows in Nebraska, on THAT side of the train, are black, on at least one side, at least PART OF THE TIME."

    There are levels of evidence, and levels of proof. Scientific proof is weaker than mathematical, yet you are claiming mathematical certainty for experimental results.
    It's more "tidy" and more "satisfying" (it fulfills certain metaphysical assumptions which are comforting) but rigorously justified it is not.
    Please! Please! I am not claiming deductive certainty for science, I am claiming that the laws of nature are certain in the statistical sense.

    For instance, every, and I mean every, experiment to date, has not disproved quantum mechanics to ten decimal places.

    This means that the laws of quantum mechanics are certain facts to 99.9999999999% accuracy.

  5. #35
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    @Mole, I can conclude through this metaphor that Mole has a material advantage, and that you just blocked a check with this hasty move quoted above. You are down as of right now and on the defensive where you initially had the offensive.
    Whoopee!

  6. #36
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    There are levels of evidence, and levels of proof. Scientific proof is weaker than mathematical, yet you are claiming mathematical certainty for experimental results.
    Impulsive Queen check in an attempt to shift pressure to the other side of the board that wasn't thought out.

    Most of modern science is based on mathematical evidence, in fact, science is mathematics. The entire field of Quantum Mechanics is based on advanced mathematics; Chemistry would be impossible without mathematics, meaning that Biochemists wouldn't be able to manufacture basic drugs like aspirin and would require archaic, herbal treatment. You are attempting to group social sciences with the remainder of the actual sciences, and it is a glaring error. Social sciences are entirely subjective and are not truly science, they simply utilize the title of "science" to justify their own, personalized, idiosyncratic ideology.

    Knight takes Queen.
    Last edited by Alea_iacta_est; 02-01-2014 at 11:32 PM. Reason: ordering error

  7. #37
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Impulsive Queen check in an attempt to shift pressure to the other side of the board that wasn't thought out.

    Most of modern science is based on mathematical evidence, in fact, science is mathematics. The entire field of Quantum Mechanics is based on advanced mathematics; Chemistry would be impossible without mathematics, meaning that Biochemists wouldn't be able to manufacture basic drugs like aspirin and would require archaic, herbal treatment. You are attempting to group social sciences with the remainder of the actual sciences, and it is a glaring error. Social sciences are entirely subjective and are not truly science, they simply utilize the title of "science" to justify their own, personalized, idiosyncratic ideology.

    Knight takes Queen.
    Bravo!

  8. #38
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Oh please! Religion has given us mysticism, while the Enlightenment gave as evidence and reason, the very basis of science.

    And don't forget, religion fought the Enlightenment all the way.

    And it was only when the Enlightenment overwhelmingly won, the religions sought to steal the kudos from science.

    Gosh, we even have the New Age trying to steal the kudos from Quantum Mechanics today.
    You are wrong on every specific point.
    Religion *gave* us a reason for a "reasonable" universe -- Albert North Whitehead, in his Harvard University Lowell Lectures entitled "Science and the Modern World," said that Christianity is the mother of modern science because of "the medieval insistence in the rationality of God." With complete confidence "in the intelligible rationality of a personal being," continued Whitehead, early scientists had an "inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its' antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labors of scientists would be without hope."
    J. Robert Oppenheimer wrote in 1962 of the influence of Christianity on science, stating that
    "it took something that was not present in Chinese civilization, that was wholly absent in Indian civilization, and absent also from Greco-Roman civilization. It needed an idea of progress, not limited to better understanding for this idea the Greeks had. It took an idea of progress which has more to do with the human condition, which is well expressed by the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy -- faith and works; the notion that the betterment of man's condition, his civility, had meaning; that we all had a responsibility to it, a duty to it, and to man. I think that it was when this basic idea of man's condition, which supplements the other worldly aspects of religion, was fortified and fructified between the 13th and 15th centuries by the re-discovery of the ancient world's scientists, philosophers, and methematicians, that there was the beginning of the scientific age."
    C.S. Lewis, professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Oxford, then Cambridge, wrote in The Abolition of Man that
    "The fact that the scientist has succeeded where the magician failed has
    put such a wide contrast between them in popular thought that the real story of
    the birth of Science is misunderstood. You will even find people who write about
    the sixteenth century as if Magic were a medieval survival and Science the new
    thing that came in to sweep it away. Those who have studied the period know
    better. There was very Uttle magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and
    seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour
    and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other
    strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse. I
    allow that some (certainly not all) of the early scientists were actuated by a pure
    love of knowledge. But if we consider the temper of that age as a whole we can
    discern the impulse of which I speak.

    There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both
    from the wisdom of earUer ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had
    been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge,
    self-discipUne, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how
    to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the
    practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting
    and impious — such as digging up and mutilating the dead.

    If we compare the chief trumpeter of the new era (Bacon) with Marlowe's Faustus,
    the similarity is striking. You will read in some critics that Faustus has a thirst for
    knowledge. In reality, he hardly mentions it. It is not truth he wants from the
    devils, but gold and guns and girls. 'All things that move between the quiet poles
    shall be at his command' and a sound magician is a mighty god'.^ In the same
    spirit Bacon condemns those who value knowledge as an end in itself: this, for
    him, is to use as a mistress for pleasure what ought to be a spouse for fruit.'' The
    true object is to extend Man's power to the performance of all things possible. He
    rejects magic because it does not work;^ but his goal is that of the magician. In
    Paracelsus the characters of magician and scientist are combined. No doubt those
    who really founded modern science were usually those whose love of truth
    exceeded their love of power; in every mixed movement the efficacy comes from
    the good elements not from the bad."

    Tycho Brahe even used to put on formal robes suitable for a visit to the royal court before looking through his telescope, in honor of the Creator.
    You ought to go read the book Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel. The popular conception of opposition to science by the Church, is simply propaganda.
    It was in fact the Catholic Church which was the champion of reason: in fact, the assault on reason is a modernist heresy.
    As G.K. Chesterton wrote, "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing--they believe in anything." (Or you could read Thomas Aquinas,
    or Ratzinger's Values in a Time of Upheaval. Yeah, *that* Ratzinger, the one who became Pope.)
    Kudos to you for squishing the New Age mysticism misappropriating quantum mechanics (vibrational healing? WTF?); but, to be fair, you also have
    Roger Penrose (quantum microtubules giving rise to consciousness...) who shared the Wolf Prize in Physics with Stephen Hawking...
    It's just not as cut and dried as your sources would lead you to believe.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  9. #39
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Actually we know what is taught as Islamic Science and it is the science of the Koran.

    Of course for Islam the Koran is word of Allah and is scientifically correct, while the rest of us know that that the Koran is not a scientific text.
    I have the patience to restate this exactly once: the study of Islamic Science is more akin to, say, Philosophy of Science or History of Science.

    e.g.
    http://www.unc.edu/~cernst/reliprograms.htm
    The Department of Religious Studies investigates religion from a core perspective in the Humanities that also engages the social and behavioral sciences. The faculty, consisting of over 24 full-time professors, leads a PhD program that explores religious ideas and values, as expressed in texts, practices, and institutions throughout history and across the globe.
    The Ph.D. program in Islamic Studies at Duke covers the study of Islam as a religious and intellectual tradition as well as the study of Muslim societies past and present.. Rigorous emphasis on the humanities and social sciences requires students to explore the classical Islamic sciences at the same time that they examine the cultural and historical expression of Islamicate civilization in its various historical phases. Areas of strength include: history (medieval, modern and postmodern; intellectual, cultural and social) and Islamic thought (also medieval, modern and postmodern; legal, philosophical and theological), with special attention to law and society, Qur'anic studies, hermeneutics & text criticism, mysticism, human rights, and gender studies.
    and
    http://news.emory.edu/stories/2012/0...es/campus.html
    The program will offer an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the global impact of Islam,

    Just ask yourself how many Islamic scholars with a doctorate in Islamic Science have won a Nobel Prize for Science.
    None, but I'm not sure if I understand the relevance. .. especially since Islamic Science is not itself a scientific field.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    You are wrong on every specific point.
    Religion *gave* us a reason for a "reasonable" universe -- Albert North Whitehead, in his Harvard University Lowell Lectures entitled "Science and the Modern World," said that Christianity is the mother of modern science because of "the medieval insistence in the rationality of God." With complete confidence "in the intelligible rationality of a personal being," continued Whitehead, early scientists had an "inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its' antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labors of scientists would be without hope."
    J. Robert Oppenheimer wrote in 1962 of the influence of Christianity on science, stating that
    "it took something that was not present in Chinese civilization, that was wholly absent in Indian civilization, and absent also from Greco-Roman civilization. It needed an idea of progress, not limited to better understanding for this idea the Greeks had. It took an idea of progress which has more to do with the human condition, which is well expressed by the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy -- faith and works; the notion that the betterment of man's condition, his civility, had meaning; that we all had a responsibility to it, a duty to it, and to man. I think that it was when this basic idea of man's condition, which supplements the other worldly aspects of religion, was fortified and fructified between the 13th and 15th centuries by the re-discovery of the ancient world's scientists, philosophers, and methematicians, that there was the beginning of the scientific age."
    C.S. Lewis, professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Oxford, then Cambridge, wrote in The Abolition of Man that
    "The fact that the scientist has succeeded where the magician failed has
    put such a wide contrast between them in popular thought that the real story of
    the birth of Science is misunderstood. You will even find people who write about
    the sixteenth century as if Magic were a medieval survival and Science the new
    thing that came in to sweep it away. Those who have studied the period know
    better. There was very Uttle magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and
    seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour
    and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other
    strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse. I
    allow that some (certainly not all) of the early scientists were actuated by a pure
    love of knowledge. But if we consider the temper of that age as a whole we can
    discern the impulse of which I speak.

    There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both
    from the wisdom of earUer ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had
    been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge,
    self-discipUne, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how
    to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the
    practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting
    and impious — such as digging up and mutilating the dead.

    If we compare the chief trumpeter of the new era (Bacon) with Marlowe's Faustus,
    the similarity is striking. You will read in some critics that Faustus has a thirst for
    knowledge. In reality, he hardly mentions it. It is not truth he wants from the
    devils, but gold and guns and girls. 'All things that move between the quiet poles
    shall be at his command' and a sound magician is a mighty god'.^ In the same
    spirit Bacon condemns those who value knowledge as an end in itself: this, for
    him, is to use as a mistress for pleasure what ought to be a spouse for fruit.'' The
    true object is to extend Man's power to the performance of all things possible. He
    rejects magic because it does not work;^ but his goal is that of the magician. In
    Paracelsus the characters of magician and scientist are combined. No doubt those
    who really founded modern science were usually those whose love of truth
    exceeded their love of power; in every mixed movement the efficacy comes from
    the good elements not from the bad."

    Tycho Brahe even used to put on formal robes suitable for a visit to the royal court before looking through his telescope, in honor of the Creator.
    You ought to go read the book Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel. The popular conception of opposition to science by the Church, is simply propaganda.
    It was in fact the Catholic Church which was the champion of reason: in fact, the assault on reason is a modernist heresy.
    As G.K. Chesterton wrote, "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing--they believe in anything." (Or you could read Thomas Aquinas,
    or Ratzinger's Values in a Time of Upheaval. Yeah, *that* Ratzinger, the one who became Pope.)
    Kudos to you for squishing the New Age mysticism misappropriating quantum mechanics (vibrational healing? WTF?); but, to be fair, you also have
    Roger Penrose (quantum microtubules giving rise to consciousness...) who shared the Wolf Prize in Physics with Stephen Hawking...
    It's just not as cut and dried as your sources would lead you to believe.
    Did we forgot the part where religion persecuted those who went against their own belief system? Religion allowed science to flourish because it was beneficial to productivity and civilization, and simply denied any information or insights that were heretical. You act as though religion was the loving father of science and not the tyrant who imprisoned it and whipped it when it dared speak against the system. The Library of Alexandria burned and no one cared but those who worked on it and added to it. Did religion, in any form, ever try to restore or even acknowledge the utter devastation to human understanding that was created from a war between civilizations that were founded upon a common religion? The sons of Mars cared not that their posterity would not see the glorious works of geniuses now lost to us until centuries later, they cared only for their personal glory and their standing in the eyes of their gods, and then when the suppressed science finally ushers into the modern society freely you seek to claim responsibility for its achievements?

Similar Threads

  1. Sciencebucks.com, the kickstarter of science funding?
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-27-2012, 01:48 PM
  2. the Pinnacle of Science Fiction
    By Kingfisher in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 07:32 PM
  3. [NT] Worshiping at the altar of science.
    By ObeyBunny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 02:02 AM
  4. Informal Discussion on the Philosophy of Science
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2008, 12:23 PM
  5. What is the purpose of Science Fiction?
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 06:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO