LOL

[ferunandesu]

Ahem. Click the smiley.

 

[niffer]

btw, your avatar is extremely appealing to me.

 

[Beyonder]

*Yawn*. His only solid argument is that children can see through religion as 'evidenced' by them asking questions about it. Those other things can't be possibly proven to be related. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in the best case, a non sequitur in the worst. If Monty Python kinds of arguments convince some people, I pity their frontal lobes.
And on to his actual argument. Because religion isn't about constructing logically coherent systems, but actually tries to talk about reality, those systems can't actually be judged on their coherency (wich is what children are asking for). It's also illogical (inefficient) for a bee to die because it used it's stinger. And yeah, I do know how that works, so don't bother explaining it. What I'm talking about is that bees evolved from wasps, and wasps don't have barbs on their stingers; this causes them to not die when they use it... So why do bees have (suicidal) barbs on their stinger? Maybe because reality isn't logically coherent?

 

[HilbertSpace]

What I'm talking about is that bees evolved from wasps, and wasps don't have barbs on their stingers; this causes them to not die when they use it...So why do bees have (suicidal) barbs on their stinger? Maybe because reality isn't logically coherent?

Or maybe it's because those types of bees are eusocial organisms and wasps are not. A bee colony is itself a superorganism because of shared genetic information, and so the survival of individual non-breeding members is non-essential. In addition, many of the wasps use their stingers to hunt, whereas bees are pollen-feeders who sting defensively.

 

[ferunandesu]

That clip wasn't an argument. It was an Fe outburst. Sometimes people just have to call it like they see it.

Saying that reality isn't logically coherent neither follows from whatever the hell you said about bees and wasps nor does it make it probable nor is it a good analogy. However, of course reality isn't always logically coherent. Logic is an axiomatic system, like mathematics and geometry, and like those two it can never perfectly model reality - Nothing can! Before there can be a deduction there must be an induction, and a perfect induction has never been shown to be possible. The merit of an induction is whether or not a useful, observable prediction about reality can be derived and shown to be damn true. BTW, this a tangent.

 

[niffer]

That clip wasn't an argument. It was an Fe outburst. Sometimes people just have to call it like they see it.

Saying that reality isn't logically coherent neither follows from whatever the hell you said about bees and wasps nor does it make it probable nor is it a good analogy. However, of course reality isn't always logically coherent. Logic is an axiomatic system, like mathematics and geometry, and like those two it can never perfectly model reality - Nothing can! Before there can be a deduction there must be an induction, and a perfect induction has never been shown to be possible. The merit of an induction is whether or not a useful, observable prediction about reality can be derived and shown to be damn true. It's called reason. BTW, this a tangent.

Exactly. And it's fun to watch angry old men question religion and conclude their experiences on the human race.

 

[ferunandesu]

Also, if you want to read an argument for belief in God stemming from anatomy, then google Ramachandran and God.

 

[Beyonder]

That clip wasn't an argument. It was an Fe outburst. Sometimes people just have to call it like they see it.

Oh. I don't care.

Saying that reality isn't logically coherent neither follows from whatever the hell you said about bees and wasps nor does it make it probable nor is it a good analogy.

And why is that so? I think it was, since it doesn't follow that bees should evolve such a mechanism. Or where you just calling it like you see it?

However, of course reality isn't always logically coherent.

...

Logic is an axiomatic system, like mathematics and geometry, and like those two it can never perfectly model reality - Nothing can!

That's formal logic, there. Informal logic is rhetorical, while it was experientially figured out by the ancients...

Before there can be a deduction there must be an induction

Already known since Aristotle.

and a perfect induction has never been shown to be possible. The merit of an induction is whether or not a useful, observable prediction about reality can be derived and shown to be damn true.

... to be likely. Truth is a different topic, wich is more about verificationalism (see critique of Poppers falsificationalism by actual scientists, on this one) than just syllogistic logic. You really don't need to explain such stuff to me.

Also, if you want to read an argument for belief in God stemming from anatomy, then google Ramachandran and God.

I think I'll pass on this one. I really don't need to go out and look for stuff I want to argue against. That stuff usually just presents itself to me.

 

[Beyonder]

Or maybe it's because those types of bees are eusocial organisms and wasps are not. A bee colony is itself a superorganism because of shared genetic information, and so the survival of individual non-breeding members is non-essential. In addition, many of the wasps use their stingers to hunt, whereas bees are pollen-feeders who sting defensively.

... Wich doesn't say anything about cause>effect, on this topic. Argueing ad hoc there, buddy.

And the eusocial status of bees doesn't say anything 'bout them having a suicidal attack; other eusocial animals also self-sacrifice (like the second ant in a harvesting leafcutter-ant duo), but they don't necessarily use suicidal attacks. Besides, some wasps also are eusocial.
The only reason for bees to have such a mechanism is to increase the 'firepower', so to speak, of their kamikaze attack; nature could have equipped them otherwise. There is no reason for them to have such a mechanism, wich is exactly what I was trying to point out.

 

[HilbertSpace]

... Wich doesn't say anything about cause>effect. Argueing ad hoc there, buddy.

You said it was irrational that bees should have a barbed stinger, I gave a rationale. I remain confused by your assertion that it is illogical that bee stingers should be barbed and that stings result in death. I pointed out why it is of advantage to a wasp to sting repeatedly (from utility and from genetic survival), and why a bee has no such advantage. I did not think it necessary to point out the evolutionary advantages of a barbed stinger, but again, it is a matter of utility. A wasp must maintain contact with its target in order to inject the venom. This is reasonable because, again, wasp stingers are intended for hunting, primarily insects. Defensive stings have an advantage in being barbed, though, because the bee does not have to remain in contact with the target in order to inject venom. Bee stingers continue to pump after the bee has been pulled away, or has been killed - bees only require fleeting contact, and swatting the bee will not help. Fly and die works better when genetic non-contributors are defending a nest against a relatively large mammal. Sting and sting again is required for hunting.

There are even stingless bees, which bite instead of having a suicidal sting, but they generally produce little honey, and so are less concerned with nest defense (and many of which, in any case, have a painful bite like that of ants).

So, the survival of individual guard bees has no genetic significance to the bee colony, since they're not genetic individuals the way wasps are. In addition, the barbed sting has a selective advantage when the context of use is considered.

This is the crux of the argument against a particular approach to religion - ignorance, or a God of the Gaps, is not a sufficient excuse to indulge in arbitrary mysticism.

 

[ferunandesu]

When I say "damn true", I mean so likely that it would be completely irrational to believe otherwise unless you can back up your belief with something stronger.

From your posts you've made the following claims:

#1 "Because religion isn't about constructing logically coherent systems, but actually tries to talk about reality, those systems can't actually be judged on their coherency."

Yes, they can, and I'm not quite sure why you believe otherwise. Science tries to talk about reality, so why can it be judged by the rules of logic (coherent, good reasoning) while religion can't?

#2 Saying that reality isn't logically coherent follows from your bad reasoning and that we can use the same reasoning to analyze what Chris said about the believers.

You see, the bee/wasp whatever might not seem logically coherent at first, but as soon as you take in more and more data and refine your thinking about the subject (see HilbertSpace's posts), then you'll realize that it is indeed logically coherent.

As for the rest: I know, I know, and you really don't need to explain this stuff to me.

 

[Beyonder]

Yes, they can, and I'm not quite sure why you believe otherwise. Science tries to talk about reality, so why can it be judged for by the rules of logic (coherent, good reasoning) while religion can't?

Science is empirical, not logical. It's also judged empirically; testability/observation is one of the prequisites for a theory to be scientific, so mere logic won't cut it... We're not living in the scholastic age, you know.

#2 Saying that reality isn't logically coherent follows from your bad reasoning and that we can use the same reasoning to analyze what Chris said about the believers.

You see, the bee/wasp whatever might not seem logically coherent at first, but as soon as you take in more and more data and refine your thinking about the subject (see HilbertSpace's posts), then you'll realize that it is indeed logically coherent.

No, he's argueing from non-evident premises (genetical significance). Just because a theory has explanatory power doesn't mean it actually is the case. It's likely, but not irrefutably proven (Paradigmatic revolutions, anyone?). Science provides models, it doesn't tell about reality-in-itself.

As for the rest: I know, I know, and you really don't need to explain this stuff to me.

Looking at the way you explain science, no, apparently you don't. But since you don't want me explaining that stuff, here's a wiki (You could also just read Poppers Conjectures and Refutations and Kuhns Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I have.):
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ferunandesu]

Yes, science is empirical, but it's also logical. Yes, he's arguing from non-evident premises, but since when is bullshitting (speaking from ignorance) reasonable? As for what he said not being irrefutably proven, I do believe that I've already spoken on this: Nothing can be irrefutably proven. Yes, science provides models, but these models do a fine job of making predictions about reality. Does religion do this? Is religion reasonable? Are you reasonable?

You can make irrelevant objections and talk in circles all you like, but I simply don't have time to read them.

Since I'm a humble person I'm going to recommend that you spend more time to HilbertSpace and less time posting in this thread.

 

[Beyonder]

Yes, science is empirical, but it's also logical. Yes, he's arguing from non-evident premises, but since when is bullshitting (speaking from ignorance) reasonable? And, yes, I am saying that being logically coherent is a prerequisite for being reasonable. I doubt that you can refute that. As for what he said not being irrefutably proven, I do believe that I've already spoken on this: Nothing can be irrefutably proven. Yes, science provides models, but these models do a fine job of making predictions about reality.

Again, paradigmatic revolutions. *Yawn*. Newtonian science also did a fine job of making predictions... Untill some observations refuted the entire paradigm.

Does religion do this? Is religion reasonable?

No, because it doesn't have a testable structure... It's not built into it. It does, however, make claims about reality, and instead of science (wich is immanent, and has a bottom up approach), it has a trancendent, meaning top-down approach. It's not testable, because we don't have access to those layers of reality.

Are you reasonable?

Resorting to ad hominems, are we? You're not that good at argueing, are you?

You can make irrelevant objections and talk in circles all you like, but I simply don't have time to read them.

Poor you.

Since I'm a humble person I'm going to recommend that you spend more time to HilbertSpace and less time posting in this thread.

Yessir, thankyousir. :yim_rolling_on_the_

 

[ferunandesu]

Looking at the way you explain science, no, apparently you don't. But since you don't want me explaining that stuff, here's a wiki (You could also just read Poppers Conjectures and Refutations and Kuhns Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I have.):
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that very link: It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.

In other words, LOGIC.

 

[ferunandesu]

Until some observations refuted the entire paradigm.

Yes, taking in more information and refining thinking, eh? Didn't I already mention this?

No, because it doesn't have a testable structure... It's not built into it. It does, however, make claims about reality, and instead of science (wich is immanent, and has a bottom up approach), it has a trancendent, meaning top-down approach. It's not testable, because we don't have access to those layers of reality.

Then why are you arguing with me? You're agreeing with me.

Resorting to ad hominems, are we?

I use ad hominems when someone proves themselves to be incapable of arguing by constantly making objections that can refuted with the very thing that they're trying to object to/or points that have already been made. I'm not even sure if you have a conclusion to your argument, and if you think you do then I'm not sure if you know what it is.

 

[Beyonder]

From that very link: It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.

*Yawn*

Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, pointed out that a solid theory is hallmarked by a few predictions wich could in principle be refuted by observation
-Stephen Hawking, a brief history of time, p15 Dutch edition

A theory wich can't be refuted through observation, is unscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue for a theory (like some people think it is), rather, it's a vice.
-Karl Popper, conjectures and refutations, p78, Dutch edition

There are theories, wich still are being defended by it's proponents, even if they are shown to be untrue. They do this by, for example, introducing ad hoc helphypotheses or by ad hoc reinterpretation so that the relevant evidence isn't refuted anymore.
-Ibid

In other words: Observation. I trust primary sources more than wikipedia, sorry.

 

[Beyonder]

Then why are you arguing with me? You're agreeing with me.

It's called 'conceding on certain points'. You really aren't used to this, aren't you? It's called 'philosophy'. Yes. It sometimes is this argumentative. No one ever said that it wasn't.

I use ad hominems when someone proves themselves to be incapable of arguing by constantly making objections that can refuted with the very thing that they're trying to object to/or points that have already been made.

... Please rephrase that. Thanks.

I'm not even sure if you have a conclusion to your argument, and if you think you do then I'm not sure if you know what it is.

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And no, I don't have any point to make. I'm argueing for arguments sake. I like to argue. I'm not even defending religion, here. Believe it or not, this whole process actually helps in strengthening YOUR case (since you decided to defend the propositions being made by that guy in the op), I'm just thoroughly enjoying myself.

 

[ferunandesu]

Once again, you haven't made a valid objection to anything that I've said. In fact, you're agreeing with me again.

I don't know why I have to explain this: The very first sentence of the page you linked me to says that science is based on observation, empiricism, measurable evidence, AND that it is subject to specific principles of reasoning. Logic = principles of reasoning. Science is subject to logic. None of your quotes addresses this fact.

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're the one who came in here all high and mighty making an unreasonable objection to an invisible argument in a video that I posted because I thought that it would cause some people to LOL.

EDIT:

AND WHY, did you edit the rest of that into your post after I had already replied. It just makes me look redundant.

 

[Beyonder]

I don't know why I have to explain this: The very first sentence of the page you linked me to says that science is based on observation, empiricism, measurable evidence, AND that it is subject to specific principles of reasoning. Logic = principles of reasoning. Science is subject to logic. None of your quotes addresses this fact.

No it isn't. Principles of reasoning are epistemological, not just logical.
Einstein himself singled out epistemology as a whole, not just logic in his philosophy of science.

Einstein's Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Besides, I never said that logic wasn't a part of the entire thing. I'm trying to point out that observation is waaayyy more important, since logic alone would lead to rather scholastical notions if it was used to judge scientifical theories... And YOU said that scientific theories could be judged on the merits of logic, wich sad to say, no it can't (I'm lamenting the fall of idealism, here). Scientifical theories are judged on testability, while epistemology and logic are used in the construction of theories; and theories are judged on their (experimental) testability, not the finding of said theories. A theory is called 'unscientific' if it can't be tested; and this all is an empirical procedure. But the finding of theories from a paradigm could be called an epistemic process, yes.

As for the burden of proof, you're the one who came in here all high and mighty making an unreasonable objection to an invisible argument in a video that I posted because I thought that it would cause some people to LOL.

Yes, I did. Fun, no? It's called philosophy, like I said. It's not just about exchanging opinions, wich is a rather popphilosophical approach.
And this thread indeed turned out to be quitte fun, yes.