Scientism

Page 5 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

09 Oct 2010, 9:50 am

There are different kinds of truth.

For certain practical factual truths the scientific method is the best.

But religion, the arts, etc are after other kinds of truth.

Genisis, for example, doesnt even pretend to be a work of journalism.
It was never meant to be taken as a true story.

It was meant to be taken as a story that contains truths about the human condition. Truths that may be more relevenat on a day-to-day basis than the actual factual origin of planet Earth according to modern geology.

To employ Genisis as a geology textbook would be as idiotic as trying to take a geology textbook, or a city phonebook as a great inspiring literary work.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Oct 2010, 10:06 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Yes and no.

Yes, because the best way that we can understand the world around us is to look at every available piece of evidence and come to reasonable conclusions.

No, because even our best interpretations of the evidence isn't 100% accurate. Part of the beauty of science is that it is a constantly evolving phenomenon, but the added effect is that information can become outdated in a fairly short period of time.

My conclusion: draw your own conclusions. Don't believe something because your (priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc) told you so, and don't believe something just because a teacher or scientist told you so.

Does drawing our own conclusions even apply to your conclusion?

Could you clarify the question?

Well, what I mean is that if your conclusion is that we draw our own conclusions, then can we conclude that your conclusion is wrong and that we shouldn't draw our own conclusion?

Well, if you draw your own conclusion that you shouldn't draw your own conclusions, you have then done something you shouldn't have done.

But, if we take the conclusion he offered seriously, then we can come to that conclusion, as it is still a possibility if we draw our own conclusions.

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

09 Oct 2010, 10:29 am

naturalplastic wrote:

Genisis, for example, doesnt even pretend to be a work of journalism.
It was never meant to be taken as a true story.

Yeah, nowhere does it say it's based on real events. That's an excellent point.

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

09 Oct 2010, 10:51 am

Tensu wrote:

DeaconBlues wrote:

Hey, Tensu, you're the one who wanted to debate a philosophical question as if it were scientific.

No, I never asked that. I asked you to disprove something. something can be debunked without killing the thread by forcing me to transcribe definition after definition for you. You know exactly what we mean when we say "thought" and "I". don't pretend like you don't for the sake of killing the thread.

Of course we'll probably just end up killing the thread fighting about this...

Well, if we're to settle that question scientifically, we'd have to run the experiment, fight about it, and observe the result.

However, since I don't really care that much about the outcome, I'm going to take the philosophical path, not run the experiment, and let the result remain doubtful... :wink:

_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Oct 2010, 11:30 am

Jookia wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Genisis, for example, doesnt even pretend to be a work of journalism.
It was never meant to be taken as a true story.

Yeah, nowhere does it say it's based on real events. That's an excellent point.

How many other ancient chronologies say that either?

Jookia
Velociraptor

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

09 Oct 2010, 12:31 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jookia wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Genisis, for example, doesnt even pretend to be a work of journalism.
It was never meant to be taken as a true story.

Yeah, nowhere does it say it's based on real events. That's an excellent point.

How many other ancient chronologies say that either?

It's a mythical book that's suppose to explain the origins of everything, but it just failed to say it was based on real events. Generally you shouldn't have to write a notice telling me it's factual, such as reading articles on Wikipedia, but I assume something this big and seeming too good to be true wouldn't forget to write that.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Oct 2010, 1:15 pm

Jookia wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jookia wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Genisis, for example, doesnt even pretend to be a work of journalism.
It was never meant to be taken as a true story.

Yeah, nowhere does it say it's based on real events. That's an excellent point.

How many other ancient chronologies say that either?

Why would it need to? How much of Genesis, or any other book of the Bible, have you actually read? How many other ancient manuscripts have you read?

ChrisVulcan
Deinonychus

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 361
Location: United States

09 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Does drawing our own conclusions even apply to your conclusion?

Could you clarify the question?

Well, what I mean is that if your conclusion is that we draw our own conclusions, then can we conclude that your conclusion is wrong and that we shouldn't draw our own conclusion?

Someone could decide that he or she should not draw their own conclusions, but that would be an incorrect conclusion.

_________________
Well, I was on my way to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I suddenly thought, "Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish. I think I'll kill the Fuhrer." Who's with me?

Watch Doctor Who!

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Oct 2010, 4:58 pm

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Someone could decide that he or she should not draw their own conclusions, but that would be an incorrect conclusion.

Why? Are they obliged to agree with you on this?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Oct 2010, 5:00 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Someone could decide that he or she should not draw their own conclusions, but that would be an incorrect conclusion.

Why? Are they obliged to agree with you on this?

Only if your post number remains a palindrome.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 Oct 2010, 2:26 am

As F grade muscians tell us, science ain't trustworthy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGbdomlBnJM[/youtube]

ChrisVulcan
Deinonychus

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 361
Location: United States

10 Oct 2010, 2:49 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ChrisVulcan wrote:

Someone could decide that he or she should not draw their own conclusions, but that would be an incorrect conclusion.

Why? Are they obliged to agree with you on this?[/quote

It's not a question of agreeing with me.

I was reading a book (actually it was a really preachy book) that had a section devoted to cooperating with other people. Anyway, the writer gave an analogy:

(Paraphrasing here) Let's say one person is wearing glasses with green lenses and his friend is wearing glasses with red lenses. The look at the same lake and begin to argue over whether the lake water was green or red. The writer's conclusion was that they were, in fact, both right.

(my own view of the analogy) We have all seen plenty of lakes, and we all know that the lake water was blue. Or brown, if it was polluted. Neither person in the story was correct.

So here we have the things going on: perception #1 (the lake is green), perception #2 (the lake is red), and reality (the lake is blue or brown).

Obviously, I am assuming that my perception (that you should draw your own conclusions) is the reality. So this isn't a question of you-must-agree-with-me-because-I'm-right-about-everything.

Dr_Horrible
Snowy Owl

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

11 Oct 2010, 3:25 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Is natural science the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, superior to all other interpretations of life?

Science is not a religion or an ideology, its a tool.

To claim that science is a worldview is like claiming a micro-wave oven is a worldview.

You could use the oven both to cook a delicious apple pie, or to kidnap your neighbour's kitty and watch it explode in some sort of sadistic, delightful glee. What is determining your usage of it is your values and your empathy.

Last edited by Dr_Horrible on 11 Oct 2010, 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Oct 2010, 4:23 pm

Dr_Horrible wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Is natural science the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, superior to all other interpretations of life?

Science is not a religion or an ideology, its a tool.

To claim that science is a worldview is like claiming a micro-wave oven is a worldview.

You could the oven both to cook a delicious apple pie, or to kidnap your neighbour's kitty and watch it explode in some sort of sadistic, delihgtful glee. What is determining your usage of it is your values and your empathy.

The underlying assumption that there world exists independent of our perception and will is part of a world view.

ruveyn

Dr_Horrible
Snowy Owl

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

11 Oct 2010, 4:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Dr_Horrible wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Is natural science the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, superior to all other interpretations of life?

The underlying assumption that there world exists independent of our perception and will is part of a world view.

ruveyn

That issue could be settled easily by the proponent of the solipsist/subjectivist view-point standing on a railway trying to stop a train from crushing his/her body with pure power of the mind,

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

11 Oct 2010, 6:44 pm

Dr_Horrible wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Dr_Horrible wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Is natural science the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, superior to all other interpretations of life?

The underlying assumption that there world exists independent of our perception and will is part of a world view.

ruveyn

That issue could be settled easily by the proponent of the solipsist/subjectivist view-point standing on a railway trying to stop a train from crushing his/her body with pure power of the mind,

Ah, but if the experiment fails, is this because external reality exists, or because the belief of the observers was stronger than the belief of the subject? (Or was the failure produced by some niggling little remnant of doubt in the subject's mind?)

You see, if you disallow the existence of objective reality, any attempt to prove its existence can be explained away by subjectivity. There is no possible experiment that can ever disprove it. This is called "nonfalsifiability" - the quality of being immune to any disproof. This quality marks subjectivity as a non-scientific worldview, as the sciences deal in topics that can be potentially disproved. Nonfalsifiable topics are left to the philosophers and theologians to argue about all night over drinks, illuminated by the electric lighting the scientists developed.

_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.

Page 5 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Scientism Post Reply New Topic

Scientism