User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 54

  1. #31
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    One other thing is that when people talk about bashing science, there is a big difference between searching for the structure of the universe that limits and structures our existence and talking about a social science.

    A social science is philosophically sketchy by default; it can change as people will it too and thus for irrational reasons. You can never be sure you understand other people completely or that what you think you know will always be a factor in the future. We're all irrational in this regard. Politics, for example, is a social science (and perhaps all social sciences rolled into one broad term) and it includes our egos.

    A science of physics looks at what laws govern or allow the existence of our free will. It knows there are structures to reality and seeks to find them. But to do so it has to be honest about how it goes about doing that and embrace skepticism of all its conclusions to do so. Its search is independent of our egos.

    If science counts ten apples, it's counting those apples based on how they are part of a particular process; and that process is always assumed to be up for criticism for the sake of gaining a closer or better understanding.

    But if a social science counts ten apples, now we're looking at how each apple impacts a person and how each person impacts each apple differently with their thoughts; and it will be different for each person and the results might even change if the same person repeats the counting. The results will even change if the apples are initially arranged differently, if the apples are different than before, or if some factor outside the experiment just happens to change the thought pattern of that person so that they see the apples now differently.

    This is why using psychiatry to control moods is insane.

    Does that make sense?

  2. #32
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    How does science threaten belief? A belief is a belief. A belief need not be true or false. Science will not make a belief wrong, but it could explain a belief that has been inadequately explained
    Well, a belief that the Exodus occured is either true or false. And Israeli archeologists have shown that the belief that the Exodus occured is false.

    And I hardly need to say that the Exodus is a prime justification for the State of Israel, so the findings of the Israeli archeologists threatens not only belief but the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

  3. #33
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    There still might have been a historical Moses, and Jesus, and all the others, who perhaps didn't do all the great deeds described in the Bible. It doesn't matter, though. The truth in those stories lies not in their historical veracity, but in their lessons, much like Aesop's fables. Unfortunately this is not enough -- or perhaps too much -- for many believers to appreciate.
    These founding stories do teach us a lesson. For instance, God ordered Abraham to torture and murder his son in order to teach us a lesson. And the lesson is that the followers of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, worship a God who has committed two criminal offences under Australian law.

  4. #34
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    I suppose if God incarnates in Australia, then, he will have trouble. provided the charges can be proven to the satisfaction of the courts. I don't know what kind of statute of limitations Australia has. The ten commandments, on the other hand, are a fairly reasonable guideline for peaceable living. In fact, I wonder to what extent they have influened Australian (and British, and U.S. and other) law.

    The Bible shows us both what to do, and what not to do. Those who blindly obey it will not be able to distinguish between the two sorts of lessons.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #35
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Flouting the Ten Commandments

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I suppose if God incarnates in Australia, then, he will have trouble. provided the charges can be proven to the satisfaction of the courts. I don't know what kind of statute of limitations Australia has. The ten commandments, on the other hand, are a fairly reasonable guideline for peaceable living. In fact, I wonder to what extent they have influened Australian (and British, and U.S. and other) law.

    The Bible shows us both what to do, and what not to do. Those who blindly obey it will not be able to distinguish between the two sorts of lessons.
    In Oz we are all equal before the law. It doesn't matter who you are, or what your station.

    So naturally we would expect God to be equally subject to his own Ten Commandments.

    But let's face reality. We have a double standard here. We are expected to be subject to the Ten Commandments but God flouts them at will.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I take this as a given. Our inability to determine it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    As for the rest, I don't think we disagree. Your post seems to argue that science as a process is not infallible, which is my point as well. I might not be making myself clear. My position is that the universe is governed by definite inarguable laws. The process of determining how these laws work ("science") is much more up for grabs, and too many people confuse the latter for the former.
    It's not just people that are the problem. The process, itself, can lead to the "wrong" answer. As an example, I'll use a scenario brought up by Lawrence Krauss in his "A Universe from Nothing" talk.

    In a hundred billion years (I might be off on that time period, but that's not really the point), the cosmic microwave background will be gone. Because of this, any civilization coming into existence at that time, trying to figure out the origin of the universe using the scientific method, will get the wrong answer even if they make no mistakes.

    When I think about this, I wonder how many "wrong answers" we have discovered.

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

    Regarding the main topic of this thread, questioning science is great...if you know enough about the subject to make a valid criticism. The problem I have with many critics of science is that generally the more vocal they are, the more ignorant they are. Criticizing from a position of ignorance is NEVER valid.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #37
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    ^^ ok but this philosophical, seemingly mystical attitude is not science.

    I always hated it when I saw how much questions from real science were stolen into philosophy, like metaphysics. I dunno, I think something like philosophy is necessary, I still dont like it, cause they weave ideas out of nothing without attaching it to at least some sort of real reference frame :/. Kinda frustrating then to think about things if you have no basis for anything :/
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  8. #38
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    How do we go about being skeptical of science?

    What should we teach about it?

    What keeps science honest?

    Is there a "good old boys club" in the scientific establishment?

    @Zarathustra made the following points in another thread.



    What are your thoughts about this?

    Is there a 'complete dominance the scientific establishment possesses when it comes to the "truth"' as Zarathustra says?
    It has always been the case that in order for science to make real progress the "old guard" of scientists must first die out.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #39
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    ^^ ok but this philosophical, seemingly mystical attitude is not science.

    I always hated it when I saw how much questions from real science were stolen into philosophy, like metaphysics.
    No, science "stole" the philosophical questions. The first scientific questions originated with Ancient Greece. There was no distinguishing philosophy from science until the modern era. The scientific method is a modern notion which finally makes the distinction overt. If you actually read Newton's works you will find many religious notions. Science applies the scientific method to philosophical questions.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  10. #40
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    ^^ ok but this philosophical, seemingly mystical attitude is not science.

    I always hated it when I saw how much questions from real science were stolen into philosophy, like metaphysics.
    No, science "stole" the philosophical questions. The first scientific questions originated with Ancient Greek philosophy. There was no distinguishing philosophy from science until the modern era. The scientific method is a modern notion which finally makes the distinction overt. If you actually read Newton's works you will find many religious notions. Science applies the scientific method to philosophical questions.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

Similar Threads

  1. Question
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:41 PM
  2. [NF] Question for NFs.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 02-09-2009, 01:24 AM
  3. Question to my fellow INTP emmigres
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 02:52 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