Kuntz tells us "Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths; a disturbing trend that has gone unnoticed by a majority of scientists.[2] Postmodernism undermines all truth. Kuntz wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH! You Know I believe in truth but I don't believe science is the one and only truth,
The scientific method has been the guiding principle for investigating natural phenomena, but postmodernist thought is starting to threaten the foundations of the scientific approach. The rational, scientific view of the world has been painstakingly built over millennia to guarantee that research can have access to objective reality: the world, for science, contains real objects and is governed by physical laws that existed before our knowledge of these objects and laws. Science attempts to describe the world independently of belief by seeking universal truths, on the basis of observation, measurement and experimentation. [3] I agree with several aspects of this view point, I think science is the chief means of understanding the naturalistic workings of the wold and that it does supply a less subjective means of understanding the regularities of the law-like framework of the universe's behavior. Yet when we frame it as "objective," even though it can be called that in a relative way, we set up the validity of the Postmodern critique, it is this very swaggering claim to the one and only truth that postmodernists are reacting against. The claim that science gives us access to "objective reality" is a metaphysical claim, that is guaranteed to open up not objectivity but philosophical critique, The statement about universal truth is a dead give away. Go's love is a universal truth, There might be a realm of the forms where Universal truths are housed, for all we know.This clam impinges upon all metaphysical claims and thus is itself a metaphysical assumption,That makes it fair game for philosophy.
The postmodernist school of thought arose to question these assumptions, postulating that claims about the existence of a real world—the knowledge of which is attainable as an objective truth—have only been relevant in Western civilization since the Enlightenment. In recent decades, the movement has begun to question the validity of claims of scientific truth, whether on the basis of their belonging to larger cultural frames or through heavy criticism of the scientific method. [4] Postmodernism did not arise solely to question the assumptions of science and objective evidence, That's an unfair generalization. That's the hallmark of his whole attack because it fails to distinguish between levels of postmodern thought, it lumps all philosophical critique of science into the same pile as the most extreme Postmdoerns,
When he gets specific the first one he goes after is Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn is probably the most famous and the most legitimately accepted and admired thinker to be labeled "Postmodern." If we must label him ofrm y money i wouldlabel him Postmodern light,
Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922–1996) is one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential. His 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time. Kuhn's contribution to the philosophy of science marked not only a break with several key positivist doctrines, but also inaugurated a new style of philosophy of science that brought it closer to the history of science. His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions. To this thesis, Kuhn added the controversial ‘incommensurability thesis’, that theories from differing periods suffer from certain deep kinds of failure of comparability.[5] "The concept of paradigm shift proposed by Thomas Kuhn in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962;),[6] has also given weight to the critics of science and of its pretension to understand reality. If science is not a gradual process of accumulation of knowledge, but rather subject to sudden “revolutions” that overwhelm outdated theories, they argue, how can one trust scientific knowledge?" (from Kuntz, Op cit)
Who are they? Who are these faceless critics of science who are out to steal reality? He imagines this rival group of knowledge preachers with their own meta narrative to sell,.That Is ideology pure and simple, It;s saying My meta narrative is true not yours,
I don't believe he has read Kuhn, Here are a couple of red flags,First, Kuhn does not say there's a sudden change, Revolutions don't have to be sudden. The metaphor there is political not temporal. In fact Kuhn;s theory states that the shift happens when the paradigm can n longer absorb anomalies that can can a long time for the anomalies to pileup. He says that for an individual researcher it can come as a sudden realization but i;ts not coming overnight in terms of what;s gonging in the field as a whole. When Kuhn says it's not a gradual accumulation of knowledge he doesn't mean these questions haven't been floating around for a long time but that scientific knowledge is not cumulative. it's not a long slow piling up of facts util we find truth. Scientific knowledge can come in an instant he's talking about regular scientific knowledge. Another red flag his rhetorical question how can one trust scientific knowledge? That is his take on Kuhn,Kuhn himself does not say that, Kunb never goes after science, He is not a science baser. He's ;not trying to foster doubt about science.
"If, as according to Kuhn, scientific revolutions are also political upheavals in scientific policy, it is easy to understand why Kuhn's theory has attracted so much attention in a period that calls into question the established political order in the Western world." [7] So here wants to make postmodernism some kind of communist-like threat to peace and civilized order, That strikes me as red Baiting, Is that a bad thing? Questioning the political order?
I find that extremely simplistic, lacking in any specificity that makes it applicable to Kuhn, Kuhn is very specific abouit how defense of a paradigm is like a topological battle. That is why he calls it the scientific revolutions because defense of the old paradigm is like a political regime defemdimg against a revolution,
Then he starts talking about the strong programme as tough Kuhn is in that movement, He was not, The strong programme is the extreme end of postmodernism that does seek to overturn all truth and all science and fits the stereotype, It was largely based in Edinburgh- with thinkers like David Bloor [8] Then he slides into talkinga about the ‘strong programme' in such as way as toconvey the impression that it; related to Kuhn, He also milables and thus castigates other thinkers such as Ian Hacking,
Several deconstructionist thinkers, such as Bruno Latour and Ian Hacking, have rejected the idea that the concepts of science can be derived from a direct interaction with natural phenomena independently of the social environment in which we think about them. The central goal of science, defining what is true and what is false, becomes meaningless they argue, as its objectivity is reduced to ‘claims' that are simply the expression of one culture—one community—among many. Thus, all systems of thought are different “constructs” of reality and all additionally have political connotations and agendas.[9]
He starts out here Identified Hacking as a deconstructionist. Hacking is certainly not a decon. Hacking says He;s a Cambridge analytic philosopher [10]He has been lauded for his scholarship. I am a big fan of His, He is clearly a major historian of sicced,[11] If he can be labeled in the postmodren vain it would be as a Faulcaultian not a Derridan, That's very different, [12] Faucult had no ax to grind against science.
The generalizations in implacable and them vs us mentality against what should be considered a valid academic quest for knowledge is indicative of the ideological basis of geneticist thinking, That gives credence to the postmodern critic of the meta narrative,
Sources
all sources acceded 5/2/17
[1] Marcel Kuntz,"The Postmodern assault on Science" EMBO Rep v.13(10); (Oct)2012URL
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/
Kuntz is at the Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire Végétale, CNRS/Université Joseph Fourier/CEA/INRA in Grenoble,
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Alexander Bird,, "Thomas Kuhn", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), First published Fri Aug 13, 2004; substantive revision Thu Aug 11, 2011 URL =
[6] Thomas Kuhn,
[7] Kuntz op coit
[8] David Bloor, "The strengths of the strong programme." Scientific rationality: The sociological turn (Springer Netherlands, 1984) pp. 75-94.
[9]Kuntz, Op cit
[10] Ian Hacking quoted in "Who Are you? The Biosocial Being Ian Hacking Ioan Davies memorioal lecture, (4/14/17) held at university of Troomnto, URL: http://www.yorku.ca/ioantalk/lecture2011.htm
[11]Karen Grandy, "Ian Hacking". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2016-06-10.
[12]Thomas P. Kasulis, Robert C. Neville, John Edwin Smith The Recovery of Philosophy in America: Essays in Honor of John Edwin Smith
85 comments:
Say what you like about scientism, at least scientists know how to use paragraphs.
I am not going to read your wall of text until you do likewise, but I will comment on the usual scientism rants.
Science is not the only source of truth, and I do not believe any reputable scientist or philosophy has ever said it is.
What science claims is to be a good model for the truth, not the actual truth. This is why science is on-going - scientists are still trying to improve the model, a tacit admission it is not perfect.
Noting that, science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. Philosophy and theology have some interesting opinions, but they can give us no reassurance that those opinions are right. Science does.
Sure it is your opinion that Jesus was resurrected, but it is just opinion. The evidence is ambiguous and as readily supports other opinions. Compare to the theory of relativity.
Sure you can - and almost certainly will - point out that there are areas science is not applicable to. But that does not magically make an opinion in that area any more reliable.
Pix
I've explained why that happened why don't you try reading the blog, genius?
Science is not the only source of truth, and I do not believe any reputable scientist or philosophy has ever said it is.
I've seen atheists who are that strident but most mediate their position, yet it is a common position among atheists,
What science claims is to be a good model for the truth, not the actual truth. This is why science is on-going - scientists are still trying to improve the model, a tacit admission it is not perfect.
Like that. Moderated. but the problem is it opens the door to philosophical issues such as "what is truth?" science cannot tell us.
Noting that, science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. Philosophy and theology have some interesting opinions, but they can give us no reassurance that those opinions are right. Science does.
That is an ignorant view, you simply have not read enough real theology or philosophy to know that
Sure it is your opinion that Jesus was resurrected, but it is just opinion. The evidence is ambiguous and as readily supports other opinions. Compare to the theory of relativity.
It' not a matter of evidence it's a doctrine. Doctrines are not scientific hypotheses that need proving, they are lenses that guide the way we look at life. Their truth value is understood existentially not factually
Sure you can - and almost certainly will - point out that there are areas science is not applicable to. But that does not magically make an opinion in that area any more reliable.
Truth is where you find it. It can be found in science and it can be found trough religion and in other things as well,
Joe: I've seen atheists who are that strident but most mediate their position, yet it is a common position among atheists,
I have seen Christians claim God created the world 6000 years ago. Every worldview has its idiots and crackpots.
Joe: Like that. Moderated. but the problem is it opens the door to philosophical issues such as "what is truth?" science cannot tell us.
By "what is truth?" do you mean what is the meaning of the word? Or are you asking what that truth actually is?
Joe: That is an ignorant view, you simply have not read enough real theology or philosophy to know that
So give a single claim from either that we reliably know tp be true.
Otherwise, all you have is hot air.
Joe: It' not a matter of evidence it's a doctrine. Doctrines are not scientific hypotheses that need proving, they are lenses that guide the way we look at life. Their truth value is understood existentially not factually
What does that actually mean? Are you saying the theory of relativity is just doctrine? Are you saying Einstein only proposed it because of his doctrine? Do you think the evidence confirming relativity is just doctrine?
My suspicion here is that you do not really mean anything; these are just buzz words strung together. But I invite you to show me wrong. Explain how these doctrine and lenses impacted the theory of relativity.
Joe: Truth is where you find it. It can be found in science and it can be found trough religion and in other things as well,
Sure. And so can false ideas. At one time a lot of people believed in Jupiter and phlogiston. Neither were true.
The issue here is how we decide whether a claim is true, or rather, how confident we can be in a claim. Science can give us a real confidence. Religion offers a false confidence.
This is the way religion works: I have a rational warrant to Christianity could be true. Therefore I conclude it absolutely must be. That is false confidence.
Pix
Joe: I've seen atheists who are that strident but most mediate their position, yet it is a common position among atheists,
I have seen Christians claim God created the world 6000 years ago. Every worldview has its idiots and crackpots.
true
Joe: Like that. Moderated. but the problem is it opens the door to philosophical issues such as "what is truth?" science cannot tell us.
By "what is truth?" do you mean what is the meaning of the word? Or are you asking what that truth actually is?
Joe: That is an ignorant view, you simply have not read enough real theology or philosophy to know that
So give a single claim from either that we reliably know tp be true.
you have taken my words out of context, here is what I said that to: "Noting that, science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. Philosophy and theology have some interesting opinions, but they can give us no reassurance that those opinions are right. Science does."
Otherwise, all you have is hot air.
U dom't play with the context
Joe: It' not a matter of evidence it's a doctrine. Doctrines are not scientific hypotheses that need proving, they are lenses that guide the way we look at life. Their truth value is understood existentially not factually
What does that actually mean? Are you saying the theory of relativity is just doctrine?
Pretty obvious I'm taking about religious doctrines,what gave you the idea relativity is a religious doctrine?
Are you saying Einstein only proposed it because of his doctrine? Do you think the evidence confirming relativity is just doctrine?
was Einstein a religious figure? Are you saying science is your religion?
Joe earlier: That is an ignorant view, you simply have not read enough real theology or philosophy to know that
Pix: So give a single claim from either that we reliably know tp be true.
Joe: you have taken my words out of context, here is what I said that to: "Noting that, science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. Philosophy and theology have some interesting opinions, but they can give us no reassurance that those opinions are right. Science does."
How does that change anything? The simple fact is that you give a single claim from theology that we reliably know to be true.
As far as I am concerned, that means you lose. Science gives us reliable knowledge, religion does not.
Joe: Pretty obvious I'm taking about religious doctrines,what gave you the idea relativity is a religious doctrine?
I assumed you were disparaging science. So what did you mean? Religion is based on doctrine, science is not. Apparently we both agree. Again, science wins.
Joe: was Einstein a religious figure? Are you saying science is your religion?
No, I am clearly pointing out the gulf between religion and science. Science, such as relativity, gives us high confidence that it is a good model. Religion... well, it is just opinion.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe earlier: That is an ignorant view, you simply have not read enough real theology or philosophy to know that
Pix: So give a single claim from either that we reliably know tp be true.
You are going to want everything to be a little version of science. when you say "true" you mean demonstrable and cannot be disagreed with,I think there are truths known only to the mind or spirit that can't be proven empirically. But there are truths that can be proven empirically. Such as he point to my book the trace of God a huge body of scientific work going back 50 years: religious experience is good for you; Far from being an outgrown of mental illness it makes your life better emotionally and even physically.
Joe: you have taken my words out of context, here is what I said that to: "Noting that, science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. Philosophy and theology have some interesting opinions, but they can give us no reassurance that those opinions are right. Science does."
you are a prevaricator. I did not say that,those are your words I said "here is what I said that to. Your argument I was answering.That means of course you have not answered it.
How does that change anything? The simple fact is that you give a single claim from theology that we reliably know to be true.
he realty of God is reliable. Moreover I just told you the validity of religious experience is scientifically proven,
As far as I am concerned, that means you lose. Science gives us reliable knowledge, religion does not.
that's another little atheist trick to pretend that religion and science are at odds, Truth in science does not equal untruth in religion. It is not a juxtaposition of either science or religion. One can do both,
Joe: Pretty obvious I'm taking about religious doctrines,what gave you the idea relativity is a religious doctrine?
I assumed you were disparaging science. So what did you mean? Religion is based on doctrine, science is not. Apparently we both agree. Again, science wins.
why woukd I disparage science? Hey you made the argument don't you know what you are arguing?
Joe: was Einstein a religious figure? Are you saying science is your religion?
No, I am clearly pointing out the gulf between religion and science. Science, such as relativity, gives us high confidence that it is a good model. Religion... well, it is just opinion.
science offers a more empirical sort of truth but it cant answer questions about eternal destiny or meaning in life,
Joe: You are going to want everything to be a little version of science. when you say "true" you mean demonstrable and cannot be disagreed with,I think there are truths known only to the mind or spirit that can't be proven empirically.
Right. The former is reliable knowledge, the latter is not. It might be true, it might not. I call that opinion.
Joe: But there are truths that can be proven empirically. Such as he point to my book the trace of God a huge body of scientific work going back 50 years: religious experience is good for you; Far from being an outgrown of mental illness it makes your life better emotionally and even physically.
But science is more than just empirical evidence. It is rigorous and falsifiable and well-tested. You point to religious experiences; that is evidence, but it could be evidence of the action of chemicals in the brain. There are various possible causes that could be expected to produce the evidence we see. How do we pick between them?
Science advocates using the scientific method - drawing bold predictions, and then testing them. This is what makes science reliable - and even then we acknowledge that it could be wrong or at least in need of refinement.
Joe: you are a prevaricator. I did not say that,those are your words I said "here is what I said that to. Your argument I was answering.That means of course you have not answered it.
Ironically, the paragraph you are responding to was originally written by you (apart from "Joe" at the start)!
Joe: he realty of God is reliable.
No it is not. It is just opinion. Sure, a lot of people share that opinion, but many do not. The fact that you are trying to prove God exists shows that on some level you know that that has not been done yet.
Joe: Moreover I just told you the validity of religious experience is scientifically proven,
Religious experiences are proven, but not the cause for them.
Joe: that's another little atheist trick to pretend that religion and science are at odds, Truth in science does not equal untruth in religion. It is not a juxtaposition of either science or religion. One can do both,
We are discussing what types of knowledge are valid and reliable, and comparing religious knowledge to scientific knowledge. I never said "Truth in science does not equal untruth in religion", what I said is science gives us reliable knowledge and religion does not.
Joe: science offers a more empirical sort of truth but it cant answer questions about eternal destiny or meaning in life,
Correct. But that does not magically validate knowledge from other disciplines. It means we cannot gain reliable knowledge about eternal destiny or meaning in life.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: You are going to want everything to be a little version of science. when you say "true" you mean demonstrable and cannot be disagreed with,I think there are truths known only to the mind or spirit that can't be proven empirically.
PixRight. The former is reliable knowledge, the latter is not. It might be true, it might not. I call that opinion.
It does not surprise me that you think love is not unreliable, but just because the method of verification is different does not make it unreliable.
Joe: But there are truths that can be proven empirically. Such as he point to my book the trace of God a huge body of scientific work going back 50 years: religious experience is good for you; Far from being an outgrown of mental illness it makes your life better emotionally and even physically.
Science advocates using the scientific method - drawing bold predictions, and then testing them. This is what makes science reliable - and even then we acknowledge that it could be wrong or at least in need of refinement.
It does not follow that that is the only kind of reliability, theology and science do radically different things they do not compete,
Joe: you are a prevaricator. I did not say that,those are your words I said "here is what I said that to. Your argument I was answering.That means of course you have not answered it.
Ironically, the paragraph you are responding to was originally written by you (apart from "Joe" at the start)!
bull shit! read the text from the top
Joe: the realty of God is reliable.
Pix:No it is not. It is just opinion.
listen it was not my opinion it was a view I hated and activity worked against. I hated Christians and christianity I did not want to believe it I just could not ignore the truth I was hit over the had with,,
Pix: Sure, a lot of people share that opinion, but many do not. The fact that you are trying to prove God exists shows that on some level you know that that has not been done yet.
ahahhaah how foolish! do you ever think logically about this stuff? I have all the experiential benchmarks I need to believe,I can't give you those experiences. I can give you logical reason to believe;I myself don't need such reasons because I have experienced God for myself. What you say proves tome atheists cannot think logically. You do not value reason,
Joe: Moreover I just told you the validity of religious experience is scientifically proven,
Pix; Religious experiences are proven, but not the cause for them.
all causes are logically deduction,
Joe: that's another little atheist trick to pretend that religion and science are at odds, Truth in science does not equal untruth in religion. It is not a juxtaposition of either science or religion. One can do both,
Pix:We are discussing what types of knowledge are valid and reliable, and comparing religious knowledge to scientific knowledge. I never said "Truth in science does not equal untruth in religion", what I said is science gives us reliable knowledge and religion does not.
there are different kinds of truth ad manifests in different kinds of questions.
Joe: science offers a more empirical sort of truth but it cant answer questions about eternal destiny or meaning in life,
Correct. But that does not magically validate knowledge from other disciplines. It means we cannot gain reliable knowledge about eternal destiny or meaning in life.
religious truth is validated in the heart and in the meaning it bestows and in the effect on one;s life,
Joe: It does not surprise me that you think love is not unreliable, but just because the method of verification is different does not make it unreliable.
How is it verified?
Write a post on that, not on your scientism straw man.
Joe: It does not follow that that is the only kind of reliability, theology and science do radically different things they do not compete,
But the point here is that what science does is give as reliable knowledge. Theology does not.
Joe: bull shit! read the text from the top
I am going by what you posted. You complained that you never said it, and the paragraph you quoted was originally posted by you. I am not going to try to double guess what you mean. If you have a valid complaint, you can make, making clear exactly what text by me you object to. If you are just blustering... well, I guess you will keep doing more of the same.
Joe: listen it was not my opinion it was a view I hated and activity worked against. I hated Christians and christianity I did not want to believe it I just could not ignore the truth I was hit over the had with,,
The fact that you previously held a different opinion is hardly evidence it is not an opinion.
Joe: ahahhaah how foolish! do you ever think logically about this stuff? I have all the experiential benchmarks I need to believe,I can't give you those experiences. I can give you logical reason to believe;I myself don't need such reasons because I have experienced God for myself. What you say proves tome atheists cannot think logically. You do not value reason,
So talk me through the logic here, Joe. It appears to be:
You have experiences that you attribute to God
Therefore God exists
Is that right?
Joe: all causes are logically deduction,
But what steps have you take to eliminate all other possible causes? This is where religion fails time and time again. It is not about finding the truth, but reassuring believers they are right, so has no interest in looking at alternatives.
Joe: there are different kinds of truth ad manifests in different kinds of questions.
Enumerate them.
Joe: religious truth is validated in the heart and in the meaning it bestows and in the effect on one;s life,
As I said, it is not about finding the truth, but reassuring believers they are right. That is the validation you have.
Pix
joe: It does not surprise me that you think love is unreliable, but just because the method of verification is different does not make it unreliable.
PixHow is it verified?
one way would be to see if it produces the effects in the Life of the believer that it claims to produce.
Write a post on that, not on your scientism straw man.
I've written a huge number of such posts try thinking about what you read.
Calling it straw man is stupid because I carefully documented all kinds of opponents who say the things i charge them with,
Joe: It does not follow that that is the only kind of reliability, theology and science do radically different things they do not compete,
But the point here is that what science does is give as reliable knowledge. Theology does not.
Joe: bull shit! read the text from the top
I am going by what you posted. You complained that you never said it, and the paragraph you quoted was originally posted by you.
You don't understand what was being said,I was quoting you.That has nothing to do with theology being reliable, that was not the issue,this is the third time you tried to change the context to make it look like that passage gives you an edge,that is nothing but prevarication,
Pix: I am not going to try to double guess what you mean. If you have a valid complaint, you can make, making clear exactly what text by me you object to. If you are just blustering... well, I guess you will keep doing more of the same.
I have only brought it up in answer to your allegations,I think you are trying to save face but don't really understand what it;s about,you really should just drop it,
Joe: listen it was not my opinion it was a view I hated and activity worked against. I hated Christians and christianity I did not want to believe it I just could not ignore the truth I was hit over the had with,,
Pix:The fact that you previously held a different opinion is hardly evidence it is not an opinion.
It disproves the assertions you made that believers are only following cultural and family norms,
Joe: ahahhaah how foolish! do you ever think logically about this stuff? I have all the experiential benchmarks I need to believe,I can't give you those experiences. I can give you logical reason to believe;I myself don't need such reasons because I have experienced God for myself. What you say proves tome atheists cannot think logically. You do not value reason,
Pix: So talk me through the logic here, Joe. It appears to be:
Every day is a new day for an atheist;throughout the Summer I put out a huge number of God arguments, such as Modal, cosmological, RE and my /ts arguments, you did you lost every argument, but not worry its a new day You don;t remember it never happened,
Pox, You have experiences that you attribute to God
Therefore God exists
Is that right?
sure its just good old fashioned empiricism,
Joe: all causes are logically deduction,
Pix: But what steps have you take to eliminate all other possible causes?
I wrote a chapter in my book about it
This is where religion fails time and time again. It is not about finding the truth, but reassuring believers they are right, so has no interest in looking at alternatives.
I answered every possible alternate cause in that chapter
Joe: there are different kinds of truth ad manifests in different kinds of questions.
Enumerate them.
why? I raised one which you can't invalidate why is that not sufficient?
Joe: religious truth is validated in the heart and in the meaning it bestows and in the effect on one;s life,
As I said, it is not about finding the truth, but reassuring believers they are right. That is the validation you have.
you are running from your emotions because they convict you in your heart
Pix
Pix: So give a single claim from either that we reliably know tp be true.
There are the metaphysical assumptions that science itself is based on and would be impossible without. Science cannot verify them, because science has to assume them in order to function as science.
There are phenomenal truths that are incorrigible, like "I am conscious." That claim is far more certain than any scientific claim, because no scientific claim can be any more reliable than the assumption that our senses are reliable. If I were a brain in a vat or in "the Matrix," that would undermine confidence in all scientific claims.
Logical truths, which science is also based on.
Moral truths. There is no conceivable sense in which "Willingly causing needless suffering is morally wrong" is not true. Our confidence in this truth is at least as strong as our confidence in any scientific truth.
Your points are excellent Jim!
The addition of moral truth is an excellent point,i wish I had put it that way.
The metaphysical assumptions science is based upon. Have you read A.E, Burtt? He goes into a lot of detail about that. Again your analysis is penetrating.
the metaphysical foundations of early modern science by A.E. Burtt. I recommend to all,
7th: There are the metaphysical assumptions that science itself is based on and would be impossible without. Science cannot verify them, because science has to assume them in order to function as science.
What exactly are those assumptions? Let us see what you say:
7th: There are phenomenal truths that are incorrigible, like "I am conscious." That claim is far more certain than any scientific claim, because no scientific claim can be any more reliable than the assumption that our senses are reliable. If I were a brain in a vat or in "the Matrix," that would undermine confidence in all scientific claims.
So what? I was comparing the reliability of claims in science versus claims in theology, so you go to a claim that is outside both!
In my first post I was quite clear: science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. I have already acknowledged that claims derived directly from the senses are reliable and from the existence of our own consciousness, so your point here is not arguing against my position.
If we were a brain in a vat, that would invalidate all religious claims as well as all scientific claims. The difference is that science admits up front that it could be wrong; religion does not.
7th: Logical truths, which science is also based on.
We are talking about knowledge, which I understand to be knowing about the real world. I have discussed this with Joe elsewhere; it is no use devising some fancy, internal consistent worldview without at some point referencing the real world, i.e., looking at empirical evidence and seeing how it compares. Proving magic exists in the universe of Lord of the Rings is not going to give any reason to think magic exists in this world.
Logical truths exist in the abstract. Why should we suppose they apply to this world? The answer is that that is what we observe. Effectively we do apply the scientific method to the logical truths; if the truths were not true of the real world, we would see that (we would see that A and not A can both be true at the same time, for example), and they would be relegated to just a thought exercise.
More specifically with regards to science, the fact that science continually does so well - look at all the fancy technology around you - is testament to its firm basis. If the metaphysical foundation of science is sound, then we would predict science to be very successful. Science is very successful. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the metaphysical foundation of science is sound.
7th: Moral truths. There is no conceivable sense in which "Willingly causing needless suffering is morally wrong" is not true.
So it should be easy to prove it. Or just find a web page that does so. I know I have never found one, but perhaps you have? I kind of hope you do, as I would love to see it proven without reference to religion (and as no religion is proven, a religious argument certainly cannot prove it).
7th: Our confidence in this truth is at least as strong as our confidence in any scientific truth.
Sure. But I do not doubt your confidence in the resurrection is as strong as your confidence in the laws of thermodynamics. That does not make them equally reliable. There is an important distinction (not helped by the fact that statisticians talk about confidence in a result). Our confidence is coloured by perception, cultural pressure and wishful thinking.
Pix
Pix I will let Jim answer but I'll Just make a few comments
Anonymous said...
7th: There are the metaphysical assumptions that science itself is based on and would be impossible without. Science cannot verify them, because science has to assume them in order to function as science.
What exactly are those assumptions? Let us see what you say:
7th: There are phenomenal truths that are incorrigible, like "I am conscious." That claim is far more certain than any scientific claim, because no scientific claim can be any more reliable than the assumption that our senses are reliable. If I were a brain in a vat or in "the Matrix," that would undermine confidence in all scientific claims.
So what? I was comparing the reliability of claims in science versus claims in theology, so you go to a claim that is outside both!
That confirms exactly the criticism I made of your approach, you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.
In my first post I was quite clear: science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience.
I disproved that, as does Jim. you must answer his idea of morality as just one example, science cannot tell us that,
I have already acknowledged that claims derived directly from the senses are reliable and from the existence of our own consciousness, so your point here is not arguing against my position.
You think by acknowledging it you negate it? you have not demonstrated how science enables us to think that way,You have to overcome his point that science is not he only reliable way to think.
If we were a brain in a vat, that would invalidate all religious claims as well as all scientific claims. The difference is that science admits up front that it could be wrong; religion does not.
Religion is not an epistemic methodology. You are just Opposing a belief system with a method of knowledge that is Bull shit. The method of knowing is not synonymous with the method of knowing it. You could theoretically have religious truth given though scientific method it would still be true. But there are epistemic methods suited to theological answers that science cannot provide. But they also involve logic.Science is dependent upon logic.
7th: Logical truths, which science is also based on.
We are talking about knowledge, which I understand to be knowing about the real world. I have discussed this with Joe elsewhere; it is no use devising some fancy, internal consistent worldview without at some point referencing the real world, i.e., looking at empirical evidence and seeing how it compares. Proving magic exists in the universe of Lord of the Rings is not going to give any reason to think magic exists in this world.
again you expect a world view to coincide with a data retrieval method. they do two different things they are based upon two different notions of reality
Logical truths exist in the abstract. Why should we suppose they apply to this world? The answer is that that is what we observe. Effectively we do apply the scientific method to the logical truths; if the truths were not true of the real world, we would see that (we would see that A and not A can both be true at the same time, for example), and they would be relegated to just a thought exercise.
More specifically with regards to science, the fact that science continually does so well - look at all the fancy technology around you - is testament to its firm basis. If the metaphysical foundation of science is sound, then we would predict science to be very successful. Science is very successful. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the metaphysical foundation of science is sound.
That is just an old reductionist game of collapse reality to a point where everything I can't control is excluded. Then reality is only about the stuff I want to be there. He defines "the real world as the world without God without proof without every answering a God argument. It is totally arbitrary. who says reality is limited to that which is given in sense data?
7th: Moral truths. There is no conceivable sense in which "Willingly causing needless suffering is morally wrong" is not true.
So it should be easy to prove it. Or just find a web page that does so. I know I have never found one, but perhaps you have? I kind of hope you do, as I would love to see it proven without reference to religion (and as no religion is proven, a religious argument certainly cannot prove it).
That is essentially saying that you wont accept the validity of religion no matter how logical it is or how verified the data supporting it, It cannot be true no matter what the case.
7th: Our confidence in this truth is at least as strong as our confidence in any scientific truth.
Sure. But I do not doubt your confidence in the resurrection is as strong as your confidence in the laws of thermodynamics. That does not make them equally reliable. There is an important distinction (not helped by the fact that statisticians talk about confidence in a result). Our confidence is coloured by perception, cultural pressure and wishful thinking
see he makes sense data the standard because God is not given in sense data,so he can rule out God regardless of the evidence.
M<M<
Joe: That confirms exactly the criticism I made of your approach, you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.
I have never said "science is the only way to think", that is just your usual tired straw man.
What I have said is that besides direct experience, science is the only methodology that gives us reliable knowledge.
Do you not understand the difference?
Joe: I disproved that, as does Jim.
That is just delusional!
Joe: you must answer his idea of morality as just one example, science cannot tell us that,
If he can prove his idea of morality is true, then I will concede the point. But not until then.
Again, I am arguing about reliable knowledge. If his knowledge of morality is shown to be reliable, he has a point. But not until then.
Joe: You think by acknowledging it you negate it?
No, and I never said as such.
However, it does negate Jim's objection. He cannot say I am wrong to claim direct experience does not give reliable knowledge, given I already said it DOES give reliable knowledge.
Joe: Religion is not an epistemic methodology. You are just Opposing a belief system with a method of knowledge that is Bull shit. The method of knowing is not synonymous with the method of knowing it. You could theoretically have religious truth given though scientific method it would still be true. But there are epistemic methods suited to theological answers that science cannot provide. But they also involve logic.Science is dependent upon logic.
Yes, in theory you could prove a religious claim scientifically. But the reality is that no one has done that. Thus, we have two distinct and non-overlapping areas of knowledge - science and religion. The former is reliable knowledge, the latter is not.
I appreciate there are all sorts of differences between science and religion besides that, but that is the one aspect I am talking about.
Joe: again you expect a world view to coincide with a data retrieval method. they do two different things they are based upon two different notions of reality
In a discussion about truth, how reliable knowledge garnered is fundamental. We are discussing specifically the "data retrieval method".
Joe: That is just an old reductionist game of collapse reality to a point where everything I can't control is excluded. Then reality is only about the stuff I want to be there. He defines "the real world as the world without God without proof without every answering a God argument. It is totally arbitrary. who says reality is limited to that which is given in sense data?
No one says reality is limited in that way. What I am saying is that only knowledge gathered in that way (other than direct experience) is reliable.
Do you really not see the difference between reality and the processes we use to learn about it? This seems basic to our discussion.
Joe: That is essentially saying that you wont accept the validity of religion no matter how logical it is or how verified the data supporting it, It cannot be true no matter what the case.
WRONG! It is saying I will not accept the validity of religion until someone shows its claims are reliable.
Joe: see he makes sense data the standard because God is not given in sense data,so he can rule out God regardless of the evidence.
I make sense data the standard because I have no choice. Everything comes through the senses besides "I think therefore I am". If we hope to believe anything outside of our own existence, we are obliged to accept what we directly sense as true.
Thereafter, I demand that a claim be reliable. Science does, religion does not. You seem to think that that is because I have an aversion to religion, but you have it the wrong way round. I have an aversion to religion because its claims are clearly not reliable.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: That confirms exactly the criticism I made of your approach, you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.
I have never said "science is the only way to think", that is just your usual tired straw man.
you basically have. You clearly assert that the only reliable knowledge is scientifically verifiable.
What I have said is that besides direct experience, science is the only methodology that gives us reliable knowledge.
I have direct experience of God
Do you not understand the difference?
that is just bull shit. you are arbitrarily deciding what makes something reliable.
Joe: I disproved that, as does Jim.
That is just delusional!
Here i what i said it to:"science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience." we did disprove it. Science cannot give you reliable information as to what is moral. Science cannot give you the meaning of life, science cannot love you science cannot save your soul obviously its not always reliable. Religion can give you those things in those areas its more reliable.
Joe: you must answer his idea of morality as just one example, science cannot tell us that,
Pix: If he can prove his idea of morality is true, then I will concede the point. But not until then.
go back and read my version of the moral argument you will see we proved it.Clearly we don;t need mathematical percussion we need reliability your standard is reliability and reliable does not mean absolute.It means it can be trusted. the mystical experience studies prove religious experience indicates God can be trusted because we do trust him.
Pix:Again, I am arguing about reliable knowledge. If his knowledge of morality is shown to be reliable, he has a point. But not until then.
More reliable than science for morality
Joe: You think by acknowledging it you negate it?
Pix:No, and I never said as such.
actually you did
Pix:However, it does negate Jim's objection. He cannot say I am wrong to claim direct experience does not give reliable knowledge, given I already said it DOES give reliable knowledge.
what BS you so into obfuscation. We don't need the kind of reliable experience you get from silence, because that is useless for the important tings, when it comes to the effect on lives the mystical experience studies show religion gives us what we need to know. science doesn't give us a clue.
Pix: I have never said "science is the only way to think", that is just your usual tired straw man.
Joe: you basically have. You clearly assert that the only reliable knowledge is scientifically verifiable.
And you see "science is the only way to think" as the same as "the only reliable knowledge is scientifically verifiable". I think that that is the big problem here. Until you get that those are not the same, you will continue with this straw man.
Joe: I have direct experience of God
You have direct experience of something. How have you identified it as God?
Joe: that is just bull shit. you are arbitrarily deciding what makes something reliable.
It is interesting that this is the first time you have trotted out this excuse. I take it you only just made it up?
One of the basic claims of Christianity is the resurrection. What is the evidence for that? Some texts written decades after the event and the fact that Christianity exists. But these are things that can be explained in other ways. The resurrection is one possibility of several. Notr reliable.
Compare to relativity, a basic claim of science. What is the evidence for that? There is loads, a whole Wiki page just on the tests for it. And these are things you can potentially confirm for yourself. More importantly, relativity makes firm and bold predictions, those predictions can and have been tested and confirmed.
That is not an arbitrary distinction, Joe.
Joe: Here i what i said it to:"science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience." we did disprove it. Science cannot give you reliable information as to what is moral. Science cannot give you the meaning of life, science cannot love you science cannot save your soul obviously its not always reliable. Religion can give you those things in those areas its more reliable.
Pointing out that science cannot give you reliable information as to what is moral does not disprove it! This is why I said you are delusional.
Or do you want to talk me though the logic?
Joe: go back and read my version of the moral argument you will see we proved it.Clearly we don;t need mathematical percussion we need reliability your standard is reliability and reliable does not mean absolute.It means it can be trusted. the mystical experience studies prove religious experience indicates God can be trusted because we do trust him.
Obviously you cannot be expected to repeat it here... Or even give a link to it. Heaven forbid! We might realise it does nbot exist...
I do not ever recall you even attempting to prove something is moral or immoral. What I can find are pages on the "moral argument" that seek to prove God exists, given morality, but that is very different to proving "Willingly causing needless suffering is morally wrong".
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/09/my-version-of-classic-moral-argument.html?m=1
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/08/my-version-of-moral-argument.html
Are you trying to fool people, or do you really not understand the difference, Joe?
Joe: More reliable than science for morality
Sure. But still not actually reliable.
Joe: what BS you so into obfuscation. We don't need the kind of reliable experience you get from silence, because that is useless for the important tings, when it comes to the effect on lives the mystical experience studies show religion gives us what we need to know. science doesn't give us a clue.
Right. You just do not need religious claims to be reliable; believes are already committed, so take it on faith. That is all I have been saying all along.
Pix
What exactly are those assumptions? Let us see what you say:
That there's a world independent of our sense that our sense more or less accurately represent; that the world is orderly and knowable; that the mind can know truths about the world; that there is a norm of truth and that we can rely on the mind for its power to know and discover such truth, that we're not being deceived, for instance, by an evil force, and that the world wasn't created five minutes ago; that the future will be reliably like the past, etc.
So what? I was comparing the reliability of claims in science versus claims in theology, so you go to a claim that is outside both!
You asked if there was any reliable claim from either theology OR philosophy. The point about phenomenal, moral and metaphysical claims would fall under philosophy.
In my first post I was quite clear: science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. I have already acknowledged that claims derived directly from the senses are reliable and from the existence of our own consciousness, so your point here is not arguing against my position.
The point is that the conclusion drawn from the reliability of first-person experience is an implicit philosophical argument.
If we were a brain in a vat, that would invalidate all religious claims as well as all scientific claims. The difference is that science admits up front that it could be wrong; religion does not.
It would not invalidate religious claims as far as their phenomenology. It might as far as their imputed specific factual content. Science can admit it can be wrong about any particular scientific finding but I think most scientists would have a problem admitting it could be wrong as a general model of truth-finding. And there are many varieties of religion. Your characterization of it is very simplistic.
We are talking about knowledge, which I understand to be knowing about the real world. I have discussed this with Joe elsewhere; it is no use devising some fancy, internal consistent worldview without at some point referencing the real world, i.e., looking at empirical evidence and seeing how it compares. Proving magic exists in the universe of Lord of the Rings is not going to give any reason to think magic exists in this world.
Then why is science premised on logic and maths? Why do what we say on this message board have to be constrained by the laws of logic in order to be taken seriously? There is an abstract dimension to the 'real' world that logic and maths access.
Logical truths exist in the abstract. Why should we suppose they apply to this world? The answer is that that is what we observe. Effectively we do apply the scientific method to the logical truths; if the truths were not true of the real world, we would see that (we would see that A and not A can both be true at the same time, for example), and they would be relegated to just a thought exercise.
They apply to this world because of the 'unreasonable effectiveness of math'. They are true of the real world because the real world is analyzable along an abstract dimension that yields predictable results.
More specifically with regards to science, the fact that science continually does so well - look at all the fancy technology around you - is testament to its firm basis. If the metaphysical foundation of science is sound, then we would predict science to be very successful. Science is very successful. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the metaphysical foundation of science is sound.
You're making my argument for me! The metaphysical foundations are sound but they cannot be scientific data. There are true propositions that are not the result of empiricism or direct experience.
Anonymous said...
Pix: I have never said "science is the only way to think", that is just your usual tired straw man.
Joe: you basically have. You clearly assert that the only reliable knowledge is scientifically verifiable.
And you see "science is the only way to think" as the same as "the only reliable knowledge is scientifically verifiable". I think that that is the big problem here. Until you get that those are not the same, you will continue with this straw man.
One is clearly the corollary to the other.
Joe: I have direct experience of God
You have direct experience of something. How have you identified it as God?
Though a variety of means all of which agree. Scripture, experiences of other believers, logic, internal consistency, studies in psychology
Joe: that is just bull shit. you are arbitrarily deciding what makes something reliable.
Pix:It is interesting that this is the first time you have trotted out this excuse. I take it you only just made it up?
this is one of my standards I;ve made many times against atheists I;ve written on it on the blog.Its an extenuation of what I said above.
Pix:One of the basic claims of Christianity is the resurrection. What is the evidence for that? Some texts written decades after the event and the fact that Christianity exists. But these are things that can be explained in other ways. The resurrection is one possibility of several. Notr reliable.
the gap is no greater than 19 years. consult my argument on the resection on doxa or on the religious a priori
Pix;Compare to relativity, a basic claim of science. What is the evidence for that? There is loads, a whole Wiki page just on the tests for it. And these are things you can potentially confirm for yourself. More importantly, relativity makes firm and bold predictions, those predictions can and have been tested and confirmed.
Your reasoning is very fallacious. Just because one set of Truth is a certain way does not mean that is the standard for all truth,
That is not an arbitrary distinction, Joe.
clearly so
Joe: Here i what i said it to:"science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience." we did disprove it. Science cannot give you reliable information as to what is moral. Science cannot give you the meaning of life, science cannot love you science cannot save your soul obviously its not always reliable. Religion can give you those things in those areas its more reliable.
Pointing out that science cannot give you reliable information as to what is moral does not disprove it! This is why I said you are delusional.
You really think we are trying to disprove science? Science does not say there's no God, did you know that? Belief in God is not disproof of science. That is a very childish answer it proves to me that you are brain washed, you see any disagreement with the cult of scientism as a threat to science, that is the only way you can think,
Or do you want to talk me though the logic?
God and science do not compete they are about different things.
Joe: go back and read my version of the moral argument you will see we proved it.Clearly we don;t need mathematical percussion we need reliability your standard is reliability and reliable does not mean absolute.It means it can be trusted. the mystical experience studies prove religious experience indicates God can be trusted because we do trust him.
Obviously you cannot be expected to repeat it here... Or even give a link to it. Heaven forbid! We might realize it does not exist...
what is it? when in doubt try the obvious read my book the Trace of God.
Joe: religious truth is validated in the heart and in the meaning it bestows and in the effect on one;s life,
Pix:As I said, it is not about finding the truth, but reassuring believers they are right. That is the validation you have.
so no one who comes to different conclusion from you can care about truth? what can we say about that???
Childish, selfish, ignorant, silly, short sighted, self absorbed, delusional,egocentric
7th: That there's a world independent of our sense that our sense more or less accurately represent;...
Okay, but that is an assumption we all make all of the time. Besides the single fact of our existence, all our knowledge is predicated on that assumption, not just science.
Please note that I am not saying the claims of science have to be true, I am saying they are significantly more reliable.
Compare to religion, which does claim to be absolute true.
7th: ... that the world is orderly and knowable; that the mind can know truths about the world; ... that the future will be reliably like the past, etc.
I disagree. I would say that these are well established as true. The argument goes like this:
1. If the world is orderly and knowable and the mind can know truths about the world and the future will be reliably like the past then we would expect science to be successful and technology to work as designed
2. Science is successful and technology works as designed
3. Therefore the world is orderly and knowable and the mind can know truths about the world and the future will be reliably like the past
7th: that there is a norm of truth and that we can rely on the mind for its power to know and discover such truth, that we're not being deceived, for instance, by an evil force, and that the world wasn't created five minutes ago;
Agreed, but as with the first point, this is true of every claim besides the plain fact of our existence.
I acknowledge that about science; I am saying we have good reason to think it is reliable, which is to say, it could be wrong. Religion does not.
7th: You asked if there was any reliable claim from either theology OR philosophy. The point about phenomenal, moral and metaphysical claims would fall under philosophy.
So you have the one claim "I exist". I will give you that - but it is certainly under "direct experience", which I said from the start was reliable, and more specifically I did acknowledge this claim in my last reply to you "I have already acknowledged that claims derived directly from the senses are reliable and from the existence of our own consciousnes".
This is the exception, the one philosophical claim that comes from direct experience. There are, I suggest, no others. And none at all from religion.
Pix
7th: The point is that the conclusion drawn from the reliability of first-person experience is an implicit philosophical argument.
Sure, but it is implicit in ANY claim other than "I exist".
Again, all I am claiming is science is reliable, not that it gives absolutely certainty. Again, I will point out that your objection is also true or religion and that does pretend to absolutely certainty.
7th: It would not invalidate religious claims as far as their phenomenology. It might as far as their imputed specific factual content.
Are you saying that even if you were a brain in a vat, the fact that religion still made you feel happy makes it true, regardless of whether the claims of the religion are fact? That seems pretty desperate to me. If that is the "truth" religion claims, it has lost the argument.
7th: Science can admit it can be wrong about any particular scientific finding but I think most scientists would have a problem admitting it could be wrong as a general model of truth-finding.
And I think any non-scientist would have a problem arguing that it could be wrong as a general model of truth-finding. You might as well say you think most scientists would have a problem admitting planet earth does not exist. There is just too much evidence available showing science is a good model of truth-finding and that planet earth exists. Of course they will have a problem admitting otherwise.
7th: And there are many varieties of religion. Your characterization of it is very simplistic.
But you do not say in what way my characterization is wrong. Mere innuendo does not cut it.
7th: Then why is science premised on logic and maths? Why do what we say on this message board have to be constrained by the laws of logic in order to be taken seriously? There is an abstract dimension to the 'real' world that logic and maths access.
The reasons I just said! I will repeat it, but if you are still struggling I will try to clarify:
The answer is that that is what we observe. Effectively we do apply the scientific method to the logical truths; if the truths were not true of the real world, we would see that (we would see that A and not A can both be true at the same time, for example), and they would be relegated to just a thought exercise.
7th: They apply to this world because of the 'unreasonable effectiveness of math'. They are true of the real world because the real world is analyzable along an abstract dimension that yields predictable results.
Right, so you pretty much agree with me. So what is your point?
The reason we know maths is so effective in science is by comparison with empirical evidence from the real world.
7th: You're making my argument for me! The metaphysical foundations are sound but they cannot be scientific data. There are true propositions that are not the result of empiricism or direct experience.
What propositions and true in what sense? We can contrive an abstract world, and within that derive proofs that are necessarily true; mathematicians do this all the time. But that is not truth as we are arguing about here - it is not true of reality.
On the other hand, there are propositions that are true of reality. And we know that because we compare their claims with the observed world. These are claims that are not just true in the abstract, but are truth - and we have used science to show that (though not necessarily in a formal sense).
Pix
the basic error of scientism is the belief in the mind-independent nature of physical reality. You can see how this historically developed as a consequence of the scientific revolution and Enlightenment philosophy, the rejection of metaphysics and the assumption that the objects of scientific analysis transcend any act of observation. Really Kant’s critiques should have torpedoed that from the outset, but very few understood them.
In any case, the upshot is that the observing mind has an inextricable role in the nature of reality, or, put another way, objects exist in relation to subjects. But ‘the subject’ is never known, is the ‘unknown knower’ of early Indian philosophy, or the transcendental ego of German idealism. Google an essay by Michel Bitbol ‘It is not known but it is the knower’ and a related essay on Aeon.co ‘The Blind Spot of Science’.
To add to the previous - 'mind' is 'all pervading', NOT as something objective, but as the organising principle which is implicit in every act of understanding. Moderns try and see the mind in terms of it being an outcome or result of prior material causes, but the very notion of 'causation' is itself a judgement. This is not something that can be understood through the scientific method because it is prior to any act of thought or measurement.
Hey Wayfarer welcome to the blog. I see God as the basis of reality, the mind that thinks the universe. We are creations of that mind.
Anonymous said...
7th: That there's a world independent of our sense that our sense more or less accurately represent;...
Okay, but that is an assumption we all make all of the time. Besides the single fact of our existence, all our knowledge is predicated on that assumption, not just science.
Please note that I am not saying the claims of science have to be true, I am saying they are significantly more reliable.
Only for matters of empirical knowledge, It cannot tell us what is right or what is meaningful
Compare to religion, which does claim to be absolute true.
It does not claim to be empirically true.It's truth on a higher register.
7th: ... that the world is orderly and knowable; that the mind can know truths about the world; ... that the future will be reliably like the past, etc.
I disagree. I would say that these are well established as true. The argument goes like this:
1. If the world is orderly and knowable and the mind can know truths about the world and the future will be reliably like the past then we would expect science to be successful and technology to work as designed
2. Science is successful and technology works as designed
3. Therefore the world is orderly and knowable and the mind can know truths about the world and the future will be reliably like the past
Argument from sign, it's a fallacy, We can the world is orderly,
7th: that there is a norm of truth and that we can rely on the mind for its power to know and discover such truth, that we're not being deceived, for instance, by an evil force, and that the world wasn't created five minutes ago;
Pix:Agreed, but as with the first point, this is true of every claim besides the plain fact of our existence.
Irrelevant. Just because its true for other prepositions makes it no less true for this
Pix:I acknowledge that about science; I am saying we have good reason to think it is reliable, which is to say, it could be wrong. Religion does not.
You can;t explain why I'm a Christians,it's because I saw a miracle,you can't explain that, We have demonstrated the reliability of religion in those mysticism studies.
7th: You asked if there was any reliable claim from either theology OR philosophy. The point about phenomenal, moral and metaphysical claims would fall under philosophy.
Pix:So you have the one claim "I exist". I will give you that - but it is certainly under "direct experience", which I said from the start was reliable, and more specifically I did acknowledge this claim in my last reply to you "I have already acknowledged that claims derived directly from the senses are reliable and from the existence of our own consciousnes".
you are donging the real claim he's making
This is the exception, the one philosophical claim that comes from direct experience. There are, I suggest, no others. And none at all from religion.
My belief in God come from direct experience of God's presence,I know many other believers who can say that.
Pix
9:01 AM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
7th: The point is that the conclusion drawn from the reliability of first-person experience is an implicit philosophical argument.
Pix.Sure, but it is implicit in ANY claim other than "I exist".
I the point is it's philosophy and not science,so philosophy has its own reliability built in. saying it's implicit in other claims does not help you
Pi
Px:Again, all I am claiming is science is reliable, not that it gives absolutely certainty. Again,
Takes away nothing from religion so you prove nothing.
Pix: I will point out that your objection is also true or religion and that does pretend to absolutely certainty.
so what?
7th: It would not invalidate religious claims as far as their phenomenology. It might as far as their imputed specific factual content.
Pix: Are you saying that even if you were a brain in a vat, the fact that religion still made you feel happy makes it true, regardless of whether the claims of the religion are fact? That seems pretty desperate to me. If that is the "truth" religion claims, it has lost the argument.
what is your beef there? Is it drawing a distinction between the larger truth of the thought system vs the historical claims do you feel cheated? what is wrong with that? Besides you have yet to actually invalidate any factual content,
7th: Science can admit it can be wrong about any particular scientific finding but I think most scientists would have a problem admitting it could be wrong as a general model of truth-finding.
Pix:And I think any non-scientist would have a problem arguing that it could be wrong as a general model of truth-finding.
that is total bull shit,science is only good for one kind of truth We've proven this it's no good for ethics,no good for morality it's no good meaning in life it can't prove your mother loves you...
Pix:You might as well say you think most scientists would have a problem admitting planet earth does not exist. There is just too much evidence available showing science is a good model of truth-finding and that planet earth exists. Of course they will have a problem admitting otherwise.
science only works or scientific truth not for moral truth not for phenomenological truth not for religious truth not for any other kind,so obviously it;s not general it's specific,
7th: And there are many varieties of religion. Your characterization of it is very simplistic.
Pix:But you do not say in what way my characterization is wrong. Mere innuendo does not cut it.
That is silly because he just said it,simplistic
7th: Then why is science premised on logic and maths? Why do what we say on this message board have to be constrained by the laws of logic in order to be taken seriously? There is an abstract dimension to the 'real' world that logic and maths access.
Pix:The reasons I just said! I will repeat it, but if you are still struggling I will try to clarify:
The answer is that that is what we observe. Effectively we do apply the scientific method to the logical truths; if the truths were not true of the real world, we would see that (we would see that A and not A can both be true at the same time, for example), and they would be relegated to just a thought exercise.
you are expanding "scientific methods" to encompass any use of logic or systematizing
7th: They apply to this world because of the 'unreasonable effectiveness of math'. They are true of the real world because the real world is analyzable along an abstract dimension that yields predictable results.
Pix:Right, so you pretty much agree with me. So what is your point?
The reason we know maths is so effective in science is by comparison with empirical evidence from the real world.
7th: You're making my argument for me! The metaphysical foundations are sound but they cannot be scientific data. There are true propositions that are not the result of empiricism or direct experience.
[well done jim!]
Pix:What propositions and true in what sense? We can contrive an abstract world, and within that derive proofs that are necessarily true; mathematicians do this all the time. But that is not truth as we are arguing about here - it is not true of reality.
That does not invalidate the truth region, Like most atheists you continually assume direct opposition between science and religion such that any valid point for science is a take away from religion,that is foolish,
Pix:On the other hand, there are propositions that are true of reality. And we know that because we compare their claims with the observed world. These are claims that are not just true in the abstract, but are truth - and we have used science to show that (though not necessarily in a formal sense).
such i the presence of God that felt when I got saved.
Hi wayfarer
What you say is an interesting idea, but why should I suppose it is true?
This is very much what I was discussing with Joe. Science gives us good reason to believe its claims are true. If you want people to believe otherwise, you need to have some even better reasons.
Especially when we are communicating on technology built on that science.
I read the article you mention, it can be found here:
http://michel.bitbol.pagesperso-orange.fr/NEVER_KNOWN.pdf
From it:
Though it seems like a banal observation, it is not necessarily immaterial that we are here in Berlin and not elsewhere, that we are macroscopic (large-scale) beings with certain characteristics and not microscopic (small-scale) atoms or particles, etc. Within the work of science, these factors are very often not taken as seriously as they should be, in part because scientists aim to find ‘laws of nature’, and these laws should presumably hold true equally in Lhasa and in Berlin and at every scale, suggesting that ideal scientific knowledge can ultimately ignore the position and scale of the scientist.
The claim that science ignores the difference between the macroscopic scale and the scale of particles is laughable. It is as though this guy has never heard of quantum mechanics. What happens at the quantum level is fundamentally different to what we observe around us. Particles can be in a supposition of states, there is randomness everywhere, the first and second laws of thermodynamics no longer apply, etc.
What is odd is that he later discusses quantum mechanics and the first and second laws of thermodynamics. He clearly knows about these things. So why the claim that scientists treat macroscopic scale and quantum scale the same? Frankly, it looks like he is trying to fool his audience.
A lot of the article is about the "hard" problem of consciousness and about experience. In those areas he may have a point. But the point then is trivial. Of course the experience of the individual is significant there!
Science does not claim to have solved the "hard" problem of consciousness, so pointing out that science has failed to solve it is hardly Nobel prize-winning. It may be that he has some interesting ideas in that area, but I will wait and see how the experts receive it before I bother to look any deeper, given his laughable claims about science, quoted above.
Pix
7th: That there's a world independent of our sense that our sense more or less accurately represent;...
Okay, but that is an assumption we all make all of the time. Besides the single fact of our existence, all our knowledge is predicated on that assumption, not just science.
So what if we assume it all the time? It's still a metaphysical assumption that science depends on in order to function.
Please note that I am not saying the claims of science have to be true, I am saying they are significantly more reliable.
Compare to religion, which does claim to be absolute true.
Again, "religion" is an extremely complex, varied thing. You're painting it with a very broad brush. Religion scholars are hesitant even to try to define the term. Some believers think some of their beliefs are absolutely true. It just depends on what you're talking about.
7th: ... that the world is orderly and knowable; that the mind can know truths about the world; ... that the future will be reliably like the past, etc.
I disagree. I would say that these are well established as true. The argument goes like this:
1. If the world is orderly and knowable and the mind can know truths about the world and the future will be reliably like the past then we would expect science to be successful and technology to work as designed
2. Science is successful and technology works as designed
3. Therefore the world is orderly and knowable and the mind can know truths about the world and the future will be reliably like the past
But the point is that for you to be able to do science AT ALL, even tentatively to see if science 'works' or not, you first have to adopt these assumptions which are not scientifically verifiable.
7th: that there is a norm of truth and that we can rely on the mind for its power to know and discover such truth, that we're not being deceived, for instance, by an evil force, and that the world wasn't created five minutes ago;
Agreed, but as with the first point, this is true of every claim besides the plain fact of our existence.
Why does that matter?
I acknowledge that about science; I am saying we have good reason to think it is reliable, which is to say, it could be wrong. Religion does not.
I agree that science is reliable within its sphere of application, but it is only one way of knowing. It doesn't apply to questions of meaning, value, purpose, intentionality, or first-person experience(intrinsicness). As far as religion, again, it depends on which religion, which believer and which belief you're referring to.
So you have the one claim "I exist". I will give you that - but it is certainly under "direct experience", which I said from the start was reliable, and more specifically I did acknowledge this claim in my last reply to you "I have already acknowledged that claims derived directly from the senses are reliable and from the existence of our own consciousnes".
This is the exception, the one philosophical claim that comes from direct experience. There are, I suggest, no others. And none at all from religion.
It's not just this claim but other philosophical conclusions drawn form first-person experience, and also moral claims like the one I mentioned: Intentionally causing suffering in another is morally wrong, and metaphysical claims like the ones that science is based on.
Jim I am trouble following your use of bolding.
Again, all I am claiming is science is reliable, not that it gives absolutely certainty. Again, I will point out that your objection is also true or religion and that does pretend to absolutely certainty.
Again, some versions of some religions do pretend to absolute certainty, but to treat 'religion' like a simple monolith is simply wrong.
Are you saying that even if you were a brain in a vat, the fact that religion still made you feel happy makes it true, regardless of whether the claims of the religion are fact? That seems pretty desperate to me. If that is the "truth" religion claims, it has lost the argument.
I'm saying that the experience of religion can be true as experience, just as the experience of pain or of love is true. Experience is self-validating.
And I think any non-scientist would have a problem arguing that it could be wrong as a general model of truth-finding. You might as well say you think most scientists would have a problem admitting planet earth does not exist. There is just too much evidence available showing science is a good model of truth-finding and that planet earth exists. Of course they will have a problem admitting otherwise.
I agree that science is a reliable model of truth-finding within its given parameters and limitations. As I've said, it can't investigate questions of meaning, value, purpose, the intrinsic,...
7th: And there are many varieties of religion. Your characterization of it is very simplistic.
But you do not say in what way my characterization is wrong. Mere innuendo does not cut it.
But you're the one repeatedly making the charge, so the burden is on you, not me, to substantiate it. All I'm doing is pointing out the very commonplace fact that religion is a very complex, diverse subject that no single characterization such as yours can apply to.
The answer is that that is what we observe. Effectively we do apply the scientific method to the logical truths; if the truths were not true of the real world, we would see that (we would see that A and not A can both be true at the same time, for example), and they would be relegated to just a thought exercise.
The laws of logic and math can't just be the results of observation. 1+1=2 does not apply with just a very high degree of probability. Observational truths could conceivably be overturned. 1+1=2 in base 10 could not.
Right, so you pretty much agree with me. So what is your point?
The reason we know maths is so effective in science is by comparison with empirical evidence from the real world.
There's an abstract, formulable aspect to reality that underlies the physical world and that our minds can access.
What propositions and true in what sense? We can contrive an abstract world, and within that derive proofs that are necessarily true; mathematicians do this all the time. But that is not truth as we are arguing about here - it is not true of reality.
The ones I already mentioned that science has to assume in order to function. There are moral, phenomenal, math and logical propositions. metaphysical propositions. Why do you assume that reality is just 'physical' reality? Why aren't morality, maht and logic real as well?
On the other hand, there are propositions that are true of reality. And we know that because we compare their claims with the observed world. These are claims that are not just true in the abstract, but are truth - and we have used science to show that (though not necessarily in a formal sense).
But physicists will tell you that what we observe is reducible ultimately to something quite 'abstract' in nature.
Jim I am trouble following your use of bolding.
I am bolding the other person's comments.
Again, all I am claiming is science is reliable, not that it gives absolutely certainty. Again, I will point out that your objection is also true or religion and that does pretend to absolutely certainty.
Again, some versions of some religions do pretend to absolute certainty, but to treat 'religion' like a simple monolith is simply wrong.
Are you saying that even if you were a brain in a vat, the fact that religion still made you feel happy makes it true, regardless of whether the claims of the religion are fact? That seems pretty desperate to me. If that is the "truth" religion claims, it has lost the argument.
I'm saying that the experience of religion can be true as experience, just as the experience of pain or of love is true. Experience is self-validating.
And I think any non-scientist would have a problem arguing that it could be wrong as a general model of truth-finding. You might as well say you think most scientists would have a problem admitting planet earth does not exist. There is just too much evidence available showing science is a good model of truth-finding and that planet earth exists. Of course they will have a problem admitting otherwise.
I agree that science is a reliable model of truth-finding within its given parameters and limitations. As I've said, it can't investigate questions of meaning, value, purpose, the intrinsic,...
7th: And there are many varieties of religion. Your characterization of it is very simplistic.
But you do not say in what way my characterization is wrong. Mere innuendo does not cut it.
But you're the one repeatedly making the charge, so the burden is on you, not me, to substantiate it. All I'm doing is pointing out the very commonplace fact that religion is a very complex, diverse subject that no single characterization such as yours can apply to.
The answer is that that is what we observe. Effectively we do apply the scientific method to the logical truths; if the truths were not true of the real world, we would see that (we would see that A and not A can both be true at the same time, for example), and they would be relegated to just a thought exercise.
The laws of logic and math can't just be the results of observation. 1+1=2 does not apply with just a very high degree of probability. Observational truths could conceivably be overturned. 1+1=2 in base 10 could not.
Right, so you pretty much agree with me. So what is your point?
The reason we know maths is so effective in science is by comparison with empirical evidence from the real world.
There's an abstract, formulable aspect to reality that underlies the physical world and that our minds can access.
What propositions and true in what sense? We can contrive an abstract world, and within that derive proofs that are necessarily true; mathematicians do this all the time. But that is not truth as we are arguing about here - it is not true of reality.
The ones I already mentioned that science has to assume in order to function. There are moral, phenomenal, math and logical propositions. metaphysical propositions. Why do you assume that reality is just 'physical' reality? Why aren't morality, maht and logic real as well?
On the other hand, there are propositions that are true of reality. And we know that because we compare their claims with the observed world. These are claims that are not just true in the abstract, but are truth - and we have used science to show that (though not necessarily in a formal sense).
But physicists will tell you that what we observe is reducible ultimately to something quite 'abstract' in nature.
This is an excellent discussion between you two.
It seems that Pixie's only concept of truth is literal statements. Even so he cant tell me what account of Jesus literal life he's disproved.
7th: So what if we assume it all the time? It's still a metaphysical assumption that science depends on in order to function.
I am not denying that it is.
But what do you think you have achieved here? I am not presenting science as absolute truth, only that it is the most reliable source of knowledge we have besides direct experience. How does your point here affect that claim?
7th: Again, "religion" is an extremely complex, varied thing. You're painting it with a very broad brush. Religion scholars are hesitant even to try to define the term. Some believers think some of their beliefs are absolutely true. It just depends on what you're talking about.
Okay, I accept that. However, I would still say that (in general) those who believe in religion do so with a certainty that is not justified. For Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus is a great example of a claim that Christians present as a fact, and yet is actually very poorly supported compared to, say, the theory of relativity.
7th: But the point is that for you to be able to do science AT ALL, even tentatively to see if science 'works' or not, you first have to adopt these assumptions which are not scientifically verifiable.
But they are scientifically verifiable, as I pointed out last time. They have been verified.
7th: Why does that matter?
Because your complaint is also true of any religious or philosophical claim (besides "I exist"); you are throwing out the baby with the bath water, arguing that all knowledge is unreliable.
7th: I agree that science is reliable within its sphere of application, but it is only one way of knowing. It doesn't apply to questions of meaning, value, purpose, intentionality, or first-person experience(intrinsicness). As far as religion, again, it depends on which religion, which believer and which belief you're referring to.
So give an example from religion - any religion and any believer, you choose - that is reliable, comparable to science.
7th: It's not just this claim but other philosophical conclusions drawn form first-person experience, and also moral claims like the one I mentioned: Intentionally causing suffering in another is morally wrong, and metaphysical claims like the ones that science is based on.
So prove intentionally causing suffering in another is morally wrong (or link to a proof). I asked you to do this before, and you failed to do so. Why is that?
What other philosophical conclusions are drawn form first-person experience?
7th: Again, some versions of some religions do pretend to absolute certainty, but to treat 'religion' like a simple monolith is simply wrong.
See if you can find a web site by a Christian that says Christianity is probably true or maybe wrong or similar. All the sites I have ever found present Christianity as absolute truth. I appreciate some of the side issues may be unsure, but even then it is usually that both sides are equally certain they are right.
7th: But you're the one repeatedly making the charge, so the burden is on you, not me, to substantiate it. All I'm doing is pointing out the very commonplace fact that religion is a very complex, diverse subject that no single characterization such as yours can apply to.
So find one claim from religion that has been substantiated to the same degree the claims of science are substantiated.
Pointing out it is diverse and complex does not do that. Giving an example, would. If you can find it.
Pix
7th: The laws of logic and math can't just be the results of observation.
Did anyone say that? I know I did not.
7th: 1+1=2 does not apply with just a very high degree of probability. Observational truths could conceivably be overturned. 1+1=2 in base 10 could not.
1+1=2 is an abstract claim. In the abstract world it is absolutely true.
We believe it is useful and applicable to this world because this world follows the same rules. We know that by observation.
7th: There's an abstract, formulable aspect to reality that underlies the physical world and that our minds can access.
Okay. And how does that help you?
7th: The ones I already mentioned that science has to assume in order to function.
Right. So the ones that ALL claims rest on, including religious claims, and the ones that are well supported. How does that help your position at all?
7th: There are moral, phenomenal, math and logical propositions. metaphysical propositions. Why do you assume that reality is just 'physical' reality? Why aren't morality, maht and logic real as well?
Where have you got that from? Nothing I posted, that is for sure. Could I ask that you respond to what I post, rather than what you imagine a stereotype atheist would post? I think it would go better.
Pix
Joe: It seems that Pixie's only concept of truth is literal statements. Even so he cant tell me what account of Jesus literal life he's disproved.
I have no idea what you are talking about. See if you can contrive an actual argument.
Joe: It seems that Pixie's only concept of truth is literal statements. Even so he cant tell me what account of Jesus literal life he's disproved.
I have no idea what you are talking about. See if you can contrive an actual argument.
9:28 AM
truth is not just empirical reality in front of your face, moral truth is truth ,science can't help us there, religion can
Joe: truth is not just empirical reality in front of your face, moral truth is truth ,science can't help us there, religion can
So should how we know a moral truth reliably.
I do not think we can. The fat that you and 7th STILL have not even tried to makes me think you both know it too.
Pix
7th: So what if we assume it all the time? It's still a metaphysical assumption that science depends on in order to function.
I am not denying that it is.
But what do you think you have achieved here? I am not presenting science as absolute truth, only that it is the most reliable source of knowledge we have besides direct experience. How does your point here affect that claim?
What I have achieved is to point out, once more, that there are reliable forms of knowledge that are NOT scientifically derived and NOT first-person derived. These would be the metaphysical assumptions on which science depends. Science may further confirm these assumptions but in order to do science at all, those assumptions have to be held in the first place.
Okay, I accept that. However, I would still say that (in general) those who believe in religion do so with a certainty that is not justified. For Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus is a great example of a claim that Christians present as a fact, and yet is actually very poorly supported compared to, say, the theory of relativity.
Faith is not essentially propositional in nature. Anyway, Christianity represents what percentage of the world's believers? And how many varieties of Christian are there?
We're talking about "scientism" and whether science is the most reliable form of knowledge, other than "I exist." You may want to obfuscate that central question with issues about religion. I'd rather remain focused on the central question despite your efforts at diversion.
But they are scientifically verifiable, as I pointed out last time. They have been verified.
But my point is that these assumptions can't be adopted hypothetically. You cannot NOT adopt them. They may be further confirmed with instrumental success of science and technology, but you can't stand outside of them and decide whether or not to adopt them.
Because your complaint is also true of any religious or philosophical claim (besides "I exist"); you are throwing out the baby with the bath water, arguing that all knowledge is unreliable.
It's not a "complaint." It's merely pointing out that there are several kinds of reliable knowledge, and that science cannot be the only one because it DEPENDS on other prior reliable knowledge in order to function as science.
So give an example from religion - any religion and any believer, you choose - that is reliable, comparable to science.
We're not talking about religion. We're talking about scientism vs. other reliable forms of knowledge.
So prove intentionally causing suffering in another is morally wrong (or link to a proof). I asked you to do this before, and you failed to do so. Why is that?
Suffering is a bad thing not just for the sufferer but in general. Therefore intentionally causing suffering in another is a bad thing. Bad intentional actions among social rational beings are morally bad things.
What other philosophical conclusions are drawn form first-person experience?
That I am in pain or experiencing the color red is necessarily true and can't be corrected.
7th: 1+1=2 does not apply with just a very high degree of probability. Observational truths could conceivably be overturned. 1+1=2 in base 10 could not.
1+1=2 is an abstract claim. In the abstract world it is absolutely true.
We believe it is useful and applicable to this world because this world follows the same rules. We know that by observation.
So the 'observable' world is analyzable through abstraction. This is what science does. The underlying principles, although they may be confirmed empirically, are not scientifically derived but known trough abstraction.
7th: There's an abstract, formulable aspect to reality that underlies the physical world and that our minds can access.
Okay. And how does that help you?
As a counter-example to scientism.
7th: The ones I already mentioned that science has to assume in order to function.
Right. So the ones that ALL claims rest on, including religious claims, and the ones that are well supported. How does that help your position at all?
By pointing out, once again, that there is reliable knowledge that is NOT scientific knowledge.
7th: There are moral, phenomenal, math and logical propositions. metaphysical propositions. Why do you assume that reality is just 'physical' reality? Why aren't morality, maht and logic real as well?
Where have you got that from? Nothing I posted, that is for sure. Could I ask that you respond to what I post, rather than what you imagine a stereotype atheist would post? I think it would go better.
Here is what you wrote:
We can contrive an abstract world and within that derive proofs that are necessarily true; mathematicians do this all the time. But that is not truth as we are arguing about here -- it is not truth of REALITY...
On the other hand, there are propositions that are true of REALITY. And we know that because we compare their claims with the observed world. These are claims that are not just true in the abstract, but are TRUTH-- and we have used science to show that. (emphasis added)
The implication I draw is that you're making a distinction between abstraction and 'observable' reality and truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Joe: truth is not just empirical reality in front of your face, moral truth is truth ,science can't help us there, religion can
Pix:So should how we know a moral truth reliably.
I do not think we can. The fat that you and 7th STILL have not even tried to makes me think you both know it too.
Have you had a stroke? You are starting to write like I do.
You are trying to get a lot of mileage out of the unreliability of ethics and morality,we can't know whats right. To follow that way of thinking we have to assume that all there is that can be know is the physical, the obvious in front of your face and ideas are just beyond us. I told you to go back and look at my thing on the moral argument and you ignored that.
If we really believe that good bye civilization, right = might, with that assumption the only way to know what's right is to base it on violence. On force.
There are two ways we can do it, You can study or a philosophy and adopt Kant or some other moral thinker, or you can accept divine revelation and follow the teachings of Jesus. Or both; science doesn't give us the answer. Religion wold be the short cut.
7th: What I have achieved is to point out, once more, that there are reliable forms of knowledge that are NOT scientifically derived and NOT first-person derived. These would be the metaphysical assumptions on which science depends. Science may further confirm these assumptions but in order to do science at all, those assumptions have to be held in the first place.
But those metaphysical assumptions were confirmed using the scientific method!
7th: We're talking about "scientism" and whether science is the most reliable form of knowledge, other than "I exist." You may want to obfuscate that central question with issues about religion. I'd rather remain focused on the central question despite your efforts at diversion.
My position is it is the most reliable form of knowledge, other than direct experience; the latter includes "I exist", but is not limited to it.
As far as I can see the only philosophical claims you can find are "I exist", which falls under direct experience, and the metaphysical assumptions of science, which have been confirmed via the scientific method.
Do you consider that a win for your side? I do not.
7th: But my point is that these assumptions can't be adopted hypothetically. You cannot NOT adopt them. They may be further confirmed with instrumental success of science and technology, but you can't stand outside of them and decide whether or not to adopt them.
Why? Just writing "not" in capitals does not make it so.
Adopting an idea hypothetically is the basis of the scientific method. If we hypothetically assume relativity is true, what would we expect to see? If we hypothetically assume the universe is amenable to science, what would we expect to see? We draw predictions and then test them. In both cases, the predictions have been confirmed, giving us confidence the idea is right - or at least a good model.
7th: It's not a "complaint." It's merely pointing out that there are several kinds of reliable knowledge, and that science cannot be the only one because it DEPENDS on other prior reliable knowledge in order to function as science.
But that prior knowledge appears to from direct knowledge and the scientific method!
7th: We're not talking about religion. We're talking about scientism vs. other reliable forms of knowledge.
Sorry, but I AM talking about religion, and have been right from the start. This is a blog about religion, and I feel pretty sure Joe's motivation for his original post was religion.
7th: Suffering is a bad thing not just for the sufferer but in general. Therefore intentionally causing suffering in another is a bad thing. Bad intentional actions among social rational beings are morally bad things.
Wow, that is so packed full of opinions and dubious claims it is amazing!
Why is suffering a bad thing in general? How exactly are you defining "bad thing" here? How does it follow that causing suffering is also a "bad thing"? And how on earth do you link that to morality? Is a "bad thing" the same as a "morally bad thing", a superset of it, or what?
7th: That I am in pain or experiencing the color red is necessarily true and can't be corrected.
I would not call either of them philosophical, but okay, I will modify my position, and admit some philosophical positions are supported by direct experience.
But where does that leave us? I still maintain science is the only source of reliable knowledge other than direct experience. Your point that some philosophical claims are reliable because they come from direct experience does not touch that.
Pix
7th: So the 'observable' world is analyzable through abstraction. This is what science does. The underlying principles, although they may be confirmed empirically, are not scientifically derived but known trough abstraction.
Okay. So what?
7th: As a counter-example to scientism.
So what is the example? The laws of nature? I think I must be missing something here, but re-reading what you said, I have no idea what.
7th: By pointing out, once again, that there is reliable knowledge that is NOT scientific knowledge.
But all I am seeing is claims from direct experience or confirmed by the scientific methods.
7th: The implication I draw is that you're making a distinction between abstraction and 'observable' reality and truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am. Geometry in Euclidean space is an abstraction. It just so happens it models the real world pretty well, and so can be used to model it (as long as there are no strong gravity sources). We consider Euclidean space to be a good model because we can test its predictions; we can use the scientific method to confirm that it is good.
We could devise another model, perhaps 2d space. It exists in the abstract just the same as Euclidean space. However, it does not match what we observe in the real world.
Do you see the difference? Both are abstract, but one is a good model, one is not.
Pix
Anonymous said...
7th: What I have achieved is to point out, once more, that there are reliable forms of knowledge that are NOT scientifically derived and NOT first-person derived. These would be the metaphysical assumptions on which science depends. Science may further confirm these assumptions but in order to do science at all, those assumptions have to be held in the first place.
But those metaphysical assumptions were confirmed using the scientific method!
No they had to be assumed to begin with or you could not do the science.
7th: We're talking about "scientism" and whether science is the most reliable form of knowledge, other than "I exist." You may want to obfuscate that central question with issues about religion. I'd rather remain focused on the central question despite your efforts at diversion.
My position is it is the most reliable form of knowledge, other than direct experience; the latter includes "I exist", but is not limited to it.
As far as I can see the only philosophical claims you can find are "I exist", which falls under direct experience, and the metaphysical assumptions of science, which have been confirmed via the scientific method.
those assumptions have to be confirmed prior to scenic for science to work
Do you consider that a win for your side? I do not.
of course!
7th: But my point is that these assumptions can't be adopted hypothetically. You cannot NOT adopt them. They may be further confirmed with instrumental success of science and technology, but you can't stand outside of them and decide whether or not to adopt them.
Pix I think that is in agreement with the point I just made,
Why? Just writing "not" in capitals does not make it so.
Try reading the logic, there ls a reason here that seems to allude you
Pix: Adopting an idea hypothetically is the basis of the scientific method.
No it's not! That does not mean any time you do that you have science.
If we hypothetically assume relativity is true, what would we expect to see? If we hypothetically assume the universe is amenable to science, what would we expect to see? We draw predictions and then test them. In both cases, the predictions have been confirmed, giving us confidence the idea is right - or at least a good model.
You seem to assume cave men did this before man walked erect.Those assumptions must be in place first that means they have to be tried in some other way,because science exists,
7th: It's not a "complaint." It's merely pointing out that there are several kinds of reliable knowledge, and that science cannot be the only one because it DEPENDS on other prior reliable knowledge in order to function as science.
PX:But that prior knowledge appears to from direct knowledge and the scientific method!
no it doesn't you are trying to read science back into pre scientific methods because of similarities to make scene seem all pervasive.
7th: We're not talking about religion. We're talking about scientism vs. other reliable forms of knowledge.
Pix:Sorry, but I AM talking about religion, and have been right from the start. This is a blog about religion, and I feel pretty sure Joe's motivation for his original post was religion.
Jim doesn't write the blog, he has his own ideas. He uses those not mine,we agree on some things but not all.
7th: Suffering is a bad thing not just for the sufferer but in general. Therefore intentionally causing suffering in another is a bad thing. Bad intentional actions among social rational beings are morally bad things.
Wow, that is so packed full of opinions and dubious claims it is amazing!
so i everything you say man! All your stuff is scientism and ideology
Pix: Why is suffering a bad thing in general? How exactly are you defining "bad thing" here? How does it follow that causing suffering is also a "bad thing"? And how on earth do you link that to morality? Is a "bad thing" the same as a "morally bad thing", a superset of it, or what?
7th: That I am in pain or experiencing the color red is necessarily true and can't be corrected.
Pix:I would not call either of them philosophical,
well they are
Pix: but okay, I will modify my position, and admit some philosophical positions are supported by direct experience.
But where does that leave us? I still maintain science is the only source of reliable knowledge other than direct experience.
My experience of God is direct
Your point that some philosophical claims are reliable because they come from direct experience does not touch that.
Obviously it does, it means all different kinds of views can be supported by direct experience
Joe: No they had to be assumed to begin with or you could not do the science.
So what? They were confirmed, therefore the assumptions were valid, therefore all the science resting on them is valid.
If you think otherwise, talk me through the logic.
Pix: Adopting an idea hypothetically is the basis of the scientific method.
Joe: No it's not! That does not mean any time you do that you have science.
Yes it is! And I never said that.
The scientific method is about (1) proposing a hypothesis; (2) drawing predictions; and (3) testing those predictions.
In step two, you assume the hypothesis is true, i.e., you are adopting the idea hypothetically. That you do not know that suggests a woeful ignance of the subject.
Of course merely doing that does not make the idea science, but that - as usual - is just a straw man.
Joe: You seem to assume cave men did this before man walked erect.Those assumptions must be in place first that means they have to be tried in some other way,because science exists,
Why do they have to be there before hand? Let us suppose this was not done until after Newton devised his laws of motion. His laws of motion therefore rested on unproven assumptions. Then the assumptions were proven. After that, his laws rested on assumptions that had been confirmed.
Where is the problem?
Joe: no it doesn't you are trying to read science back into pre scientific methods because of similarities to make scene seem all pervasive.
If it was all pervasive, we would not be arguing! The problem is all those claims that fail to use anything comparable to the scientific method.
I accept there are things that have not been scientifically tested in a formal sense, but so what?
As a baby you learnt about object permanence - that an object continues to exist even when you look away. How did you learn that? Initially by observation, and then confirmed by noting that when you expect the object to still be there, it actually is. It is stuff like this that allows you to build up a model of how the world works, and that model gets confirmed every time the world acts as you expect. That is - in effect - the scientific method.
Joe: Jim doesn't write the blog, he has his own ideas. He uses those not mine,we agree on some things but not all.
But the point is that this is a blog about religion, so it is odd that he wants to exclude religion from the debate.
Joe: Obviously it does, it means all different kinds of views can be supported by direct experience
Sure, but do not imagine your direct experiences will convince anyone but you. You perceptions are filtered by your way of thinking. Your direct experience of God is a sense of something, but I see no reason to actually attribute it to God.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: No they had to be assumed to begin with or you could not do the science.
So what? They were confirmed, therefore the assumptions were valid, therefore all the science resting on them is valid.
That does not disprove religion, or philosophy or any number of nonscientific things.It's not a trade off.
If you think otherwise, talk me through the logic.
you obviously think science helps you in some ax to grind against religion and it does not,
Pix: Adopting an idea hypothetically is the basis of the scientific method.
Joe: No it's not! That does not mean any time you do that you have science.
Yes it is! And I never said that.
You said it just now, if not, what the hell are you on about?
The scientific method is about (1) proposing a hypothesis; (2) drawing predictions; and (3) testing those predictions.
scientism is not science. calling down scientism is not calling down science,
In step two, you assume the hypothesis is true, i.e., you are adopting the idea hypothetically. That you do not know that suggests a woeful ignance of the subject.
why do you assume I don't know it dumbass. That's like saying because I'm not breaking down he chemical composition of oxygen every five seconds Im not breathing,
Pix'Of course merely doing that does not make the idea science, but that - as usual - is just a straw man.
your straw man
Joe: You seem to assume cave men did this before man walked erect.Those assumptions must be in place first that means they have to be tried in some other way,because science exists,
Pix:Why do they have to be there before hand?
Because they are assumptions. Assumptions come first
Let us suppose this was not done until after Newton devised his laws of motion. His laws of motion therefore rested on unproven assumptions. Then the assumptions were proven. After that, his laws rested on assumptions that had been confirmed.
You do not base laws unproven assumptions to be law it has to be established,
Where is the problem?
You are trying to reduce all thought to scientific experiment, that is scientism, you are into scientism,
Joe: no it doesn't you are trying to read science back into pre scientific methods because of similarities to make scene seem all pervasive.
If it was all pervasive, we would not be arguing! The problem is all those claims that fail to use anything comparable to the scientific method.
You worship science, you need God you are mad at real God so you invent science God, golden calf in lab coat, Science fails in matter of morality and spirituality and ultimate truth Science fails because it can't answer those questions
I accept there are things that have not been scientifically tested in a formal sense, but so what?
so science is not God.Those things night never be testable but that doesn't make them false.
As a baby you learnt about object permanence - that an object continues to exist even when you look away. How did you learn that? Initially by observation, and then confirmed by noting that when you expect the object to still be there, it actually is. It is stuff like this that allows you to build up a model of how the world works, and that model gets confirmed every time the world acts as you expect. That is - in effect - the scientific method.
You are just basing truth on the physical world in front of you as I said, that proves my point I made about you.
Joe: Jim doesn't write the blog, he has his own ideas. He uses those not mine,we agree on some things but not all.
Pix: But the point is that this is a blog about religion, so it is odd that he wants to exclude religion from the debate.
I don't speak for jJim but I think he just likes to lead up to it.
Joe: Obviously it does, it means all different kinds of views can be supported by direct experience
Pox?Sure, but do not imagine your direct experiences will convince anyone but you.
Really how long you think I've been doing this? since 1998.Christian since 1979, this is why I do God arguments.
You perceptions are filtered by your way of thinking. Your direct experience of God is a sense of something, but I see no reason to actually attribute it to God.
because you are in rebellion against God due to sin nature,
Joe: That does not disprove religion, or philosophy or any number of nonscientific things.It's not a trade off.
Are you really going to pretend you have not worked out what we are discussing?
At no point in this discussion have I said ANYTHING about disproving religion or philosophy. This has all been about what offers the most reliable knowledge, as I am sure you know, so this looks like a particularly pathetic attempt at a straw man.
Joe: you obviously think science helps you in some ax to grind against religion and it does not,
Looks like you have abandoned all pretense of an argument.
Joe: You said it just now, if not, what the hell are you on about?
I have assuredly NEVER said all you have to do in science is adopt an idea hypothetically. What I said is that adopt an idea hypothetically is a part of science.
That you fail to understand that distinction tells me you have no idea about any of this. Maybe these are not deliberate straw men - you really are utterly clueless about what the discussion is about.
Pix: The scientific method is about (1) proposing a hypothesis; (2) drawing predictions; and (3) testing those predictions.
Joe: scientism is not science. calling down scientism is not calling down science,
How does that relate in any way to what it is replying to? It does not! Once again you confirm that you have no clue what the discussion is about.
Joe: why do you assume I don't know it dumbass.
You seem to think there is no difference between 'science is adopting an idea hypothetically' and 'adopting an idea hypothetically is a part of science', so really why would I think you know the first thing about it?
Joe: your straw man
If you honestly think I am attacking a straw man, you will be able to point out the difference between what I say you claim and what you really claim. I will give some examples, so you can see how this might be done:
Your straw man: I think any time you adopting an idea hypothetically you have science ("That does not mean any time you do that you have science.")
The truth: I think adopting an idea hypothetically is just one part of scientific methodology.
Your straw man: I am arguing that religion is disproven ("That does not disprove religion")
The truth: I am arguing the knowledge from religion is less reliable
Your straw man: I believe science is the only way to think ("you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.")
The truth: Science is the most reliable source of knowledge outside direct experience
Do you see how it works, Joe? I can point to all these as straw men, and I can furthermore explain why they are straw men, and quote the text where you made them. This is what we call supporting a claim with evidence.
Admittedly, I do have a big advantage here, because, of course, I have right on my side. I only accuse you of a straw man when it is actually true, which means I have the luxury of being able to support the claim - I have the evidence right there to prove it. I guess it must be tough in your position...
Pix
Joe: Because they are assumptions. Assumptions come first
What is your point?
Joe: You do not base laws unproven assumptions to be law it has to be established,
But they have been established.
Pix: Why do they have to be there before hand? Let us suppose this was not done until after Newton devised his laws of motion. His laws of motion therefore rested on unproven assumptions. Then the assumptions were proven. After that, his laws rested on assumptions that had been confirmed.
Where is the problem?
Joe: You are trying to reduce all thought to scientific experiment, that is scientism, you are into scientism,
So the problem with proving the assumptions later, after Newton had already prposed the laws of motion, is - according to Joe - that some guy on the internet is "trying to reduce all thought to scientific experiment"!
Do you want to stick with that Joe?
It is patently absurd, but at this stage it does not entirely surprise me.
Joe: You worship science, you need God you are mad at real God so you invent science God, golden calf in lab coat, Science fails in matter of morality and spirituality and ultimate truth Science fails because it can't answer those questions
Get on that street corner and start preaching hellfire!
Because you have clearly abandoned rational argument.
1. I do not worship science.
2. I do not need God, I do not believe he even exists
3. I am not mad at God, I do not believe he even exists
4. Science is not God
5. I have already noted that science cannot answer questions of morality and spirituality
Joe: so science is not God.Those things night never be testable but that doesn't make them false.
It makes them uncertain.
Again, I wonder if you have a clue what I have been posting about. Right in my first post I said this:
Noting that, science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. Philosophy and theology have some interesting opinions, but they can give us no reassurance that those opinions are right. Science does.
I suggest you actually read it before you post again, and see if you can get some idea of what I am saying.
Joe: You are just basing truth on the physical world in front of you as I said, that proves my point I made about you.
I am basing what I believe to be true on how reliable the information is.
Pix
Pix: 7th: So the 'observable' world is analyzable through abstraction. This is what science does. The underlying principles, although they may be confirmed empirically, are not scientifically derived but known trough abstraction.
Okay. So what?
You're assuming that the only 'real knowledge' is the type that cashes out through observable verification. Do you see that you are begging the question? You assume that the 'real world' is the observable world, so you are defining terms to fit your scientism.
Pix: So what is the example? The laws of nature? I think I must be missing something here, but re-reading what you said, I have no idea what.
There are aspects of reality that are not physical in nature, like metaphysical and logical truths, values, etc. Reality is not just physical reality.
But all I am seeing is claims from direct experience or confirmed by the scientific methods.
Do you think that there are any truths that are not physical in nature? What about the ones you have been expressing on this board?
Pix: I am. Geometry in Euclidean space is an abstraction. It just so happens it models the real world pretty well, and so can be used to model it (as long as there are no strong gravity sources). We consider Euclidean space to be a good model because we can test its predictions; we can use the scientific method to confirm that it is good.
We could devise another model, perhaps 2d space. It exists in the abstract just the same as Euclidean space. However, it does not match what we observe in the real world.
Do you see the difference? Both are abstract, but one is a good model, one is not.
Again, you're assuming, without argument, that the "real world" is the physical, observable world. That's begging the crucial question. Can you see that? We are both expressing putative truths on ere all the time that are not physical or observable.
this was written by 7 but he had toruble postin.
Pix: But those metaphysical assumptions were confirmed using the scientific method!
You're still missing the point. Those assumptions are not like a hypothesis that is tested and then confirmed through instrumental success. They cannot be jettisoned in favor of another set of assumptions. They are a necessary pre-condition for knowing anything at all. Science cannot 'confirm' them because science cannot step outside of those assumptions to test them against a neutral set of background conditions. They work instrumentally within the framework of the assumptions.
Pix: My position is it is the most reliable form of knowledge, other than direct experience; the latter includes "I exist", but is not limited to it.
As far as I can see the only philosophical claims you can find are "I exist", which falls under direct experience, and the metaphysical assumptions of science, which have been confirmed via the scientific method.
First-person experience is a very large caveat to your claim! It is what we each individually experience all of of our waking lives, so I take that as a major concession on your part and a win for mine. And it's not just the claim "I exist" but ALL the first-person judgments we make, which are virtually infinite in number!
And as I've said, certain moral judgments, such as torturing infants for fun is wrong, are true as are the metaphysical truths upon which science itself depends! Would you disagree that torturing infants for fun is wrong?
Pix:Do you consider that a win for your side? I do not.
Pix: Why? Just writing "not" in capitals does not make it so.
Adopting an idea hypothetically is the basis of the scientific method. If we hypothetically assume relativity is true, what would we expect to see? If we hypothetically assume the universe is amenable to science, what would we expect to see? We draw predictions and then test them. In both cases, the predictions have been confirmed, giving us confidence the idea is right - or at least a good model.
I already explained the disanalogy above. Epistemically these assumptions are the only game in town. For instance, we cannot test the 'hypothesis' that there is a sense-independent world that our senses accurately represent, because any test result will be the result of our sense data.
Pix: But that prior knowledge appears to from direct knowledge and the scientific method!
See above.
Sorry, but I AM talking about religion, and have been right from the start. This is a blog about religion, and I feel pretty sure Joe's motivation for his original post was religion.
Sorry, but this thread is about scientism. I realize that your hobby horse is trying to debunk fundy Xianity and you'd love nothing better than to draw me down one of your rabbit holes of debunking the Resurrection or some such, but I prefer to focus on the topic: scientism.
Pix: Wow, that is so packed full of opinions and dubious claims it is amazing!
Why is suffering a bad thing in general? How exactly are you defining "bad thing" here? How does it follow that causing suffering is also a "bad thing"? And how on earth do you link that to morality? Is a "bad thing" the same as a "morally bad thing", a superset of it, or what?
Do you really not know what a "bad thing" is?! As opposed to a "good thing"?! At how elementary a stage do we have to start? Bad and good things would be linked to morality through the deliberations and actions of rational, social beings. Rather than having to go through a protracted metaethical discussion, do you think that there are any moral truths at all, such as the one I asked you about above?
Pix: 7th: That I am in pain or experiencing the color red is necessarily true and can't be corrected.
I would not call either of them philosophical, but okay, I will modify my position, and admit some philosophical positions are supported by direct experience.
Yes, those are philosophical conclusions drawn form first-person experiences and judgments.
Pix: But where does that leave us? I still maintain science is the only source of reliable knowledge other than direct experience. Your point that some philosophical claims are reliable because they come from direct experience does not touch that.
Metaphysical assumptions without which any knowledge, including science, would be impossible. Moral knowledge. Phenomenal knowledge.
I am taking this a little out of order, as the first issue here is what we are arguing about.
7th: Sorry, but this thread is about scientism. I realize that your hobby horse is trying to debunk fundy Xianity and you'd love nothing better than to draw me down one of your rabbit holes of debunking the Resurrection or some such, but I prefer to focus on the topic: scientism.
Firstly, if you think Joe does not post about "scientism" for religious reasons then I very much disagree. His point about scientism in general is a reaction to science being used to argue against God.
But, okay, you want to discuss scientism. Here is the very first sentence from Joe's post:
"Scientism is the understanding that science is the only valid form of knowledge."
I do not believe science is the only valid form of knowledge, so like you I reject scientism (as Joe defines it). We both agree it is wrong.
So you can either focus solely on scientism, and leave the discussion happy that we agree, or we can discuss how we acquire knowledge of the real world, and how we judge how reliable that knowledge is.
Pix
7th: You're assuming that the only 'real knowledge' is the type that cashes out through observable verification. Do you see that you are begging the question? You assume that the 'real world' is the observable world, so you are defining terms to fit your scientism.
No, I do not get it. How is that a circular argument?
Yes, I assume that the 'real world' is the observable world. If your argument has any value then you need to show that that is not the case for anything besides "I exist" and purely abstract claims. Otherwise you are rejecting all knowledge, not just science.
7th: There are aspects of reality that are not physical in nature, like metaphysical and logical truths, values, etc. Reality is not just physical reality.
I agree that reality is not just physical reality, but there is a difference between reality and abstract. Logical truths are abstract.
7th: Do you think that there are any truths that are not physical in nature? What about the ones you have been expressing on this board?
Sure.
7th: Again, you're assuming, without argument, that the "real world" is the physical, observable world. That's begging the crucial question. Can you see that? We are both expressing putative truths on ere all the time that are not physical or observable.
What exactly do you mean by "truth"?
For me, "truth" is that which maps accurately to the real world. I am not begging the question; the "real world" is the physical, observable world because that is what I understand "truth" to mean.
For example, God undoubtedly exists as a concept, given we are able to discuss the concept. But to me, it does not then necessarily follow that "God exists" is a true claim because the claim is not true of the physical, observable world (if you prefer, substitute "ghost" for "God", and see if that works better for you).
That does not mean every truth is physical in nature, but it does mean they relate to the physical world. If God exists, then he relates to the physical world - that is what "exists" means. If ghosts exists, then they relate in some way to the physical world.
I get the impression you are using "truth" is another sense. Certainly there are truths that follow from abstract ideas in maths and logic, so I am not saying your usage is wrong, but it is different to mine, so perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here.
Pix
7th: You're still missing the point. Those assumptions are not like a hypothesis that is tested and then confirmed through instrumental success. They cannot be jettisoned in favor of another set of assumptions. They are a necessary pre-condition for knowing anything at all. Science cannot 'confirm' them because science cannot step outside of those assumptions to test them against a neutral set of background conditions. They work instrumentally within the framework of the assumptions.
It would help if you could give a specific example, then we could look at that in detail. I will pick two myself.
1. What we perceive as reality really is reality. This is an assumption science makes, and I agree it cannot be confirmed. It is, however, a problem for all knowledge outside "I exist".
I am not saying science is absolute truth, I am saying it is more reliable than the alternatives. What you say here makes science and also the alternatives less reliable, so relative to those alternatives, science is still out in front.
2. The universe is amenable to science. This is an assumption that has been well established. The fact that objects follow Newton's laws of motion confirms it. The fact that your house is consistently still there when you come back to it confirms it.
7th: First-person experience is a very large caveat to your claim! It is what we each individually experience all of of our waking lives, so I take that as a major concession on your part and a win for mine. And it's not just the claim "I exist" but ALL the first-person judgments we make, which are virtually infinite in number!
If you want to take that as a win, you go for it. I was quite clear about that right from my first comment, so I guess you only joined the discussion because I had already given you the win before hand.
7th: And as I've said, certain moral judgments, such as torturing infants for fun is wrong, are true as are the metaphysical truths upon which science itself depends! Would you disagree that torturing infants for fun is wrong?
I share your opinion that torturing infants for fun is wrong. I would like to think it is objectively wrong, but I cannot see how that can be proven. I assume you do not think something is true just because most people think it is.
7th: Do you really not know what a "bad thing" is?!
In vague, general terms, sure. But what exactly you mean by it in that context, no. A bad apple is an apple that makes you ill if you eat it. A bad exam result is less than a certain percentage.
7th: Do you really not know what a "bad thing" is?! As opposed to a "good thing"?! At how elementary a stage do we have to start? Bad and good things would be linked to morality through the deliberations and actions of rational, social beings. Rather than having to go through a protracted metaethical discussion, do you think that there are any moral truths at all, such as the one I asked you about above?
If you do not want to go through a protracted metaethical discussion, just link to a web page that proves it.
Or a web page that proves any moral claim.
I do not think you can. In fact, I feel pretty sure philosophers cannot agree on how we judge something as right or wrong. Do you want to go with categorical imperative or utilitarianism or state consequentialism or something else? If philosophers cannot agree on the under-pinnings of morality, how can you possibly prove something is wrong?
7th: Metaphysical assumptions without which any knowledge, including science, would be impossible.
Okay. I have not said otherwise, and that does not make the alternatives to science any more reliable or even comparatively more reliable.
7th: Metaphysical assumptions without which any knowledge, including science, would be impossible. Moral knowledge. Phenomenal knowledge.
Not sure what the point of the last four words there is.
Pix
Anonymous said...
I am taking this a little out of order, as the first issue here is what we are arguing about.
7th: Sorry, but this thread is about scientism. I realize that your hobby horse is trying to debunk fundy Xianity and you'd love nothing better than to draw me down one of your rabbit holes of debunking the Resurrection or some such, but I prefer to focus on the topic: scientism.
Firstly, if you think Joe does not post about "scientism" for religious reasons then I very much disagree. His point about scientism in general is a reaction to science being used to argue against God.
That irrelevant it doesn;t matter why I want to discus it,its still the topic,
But, okay, you want to discuss scientism. Here is the very first sentence from Joe's post:
"Scientism is the understanding that science is the only valid form of knowledge."
Pix:I do not believe science is the only valid form of knowledge, so like you I reject scientism (as Joe defines it). We both agree it is wrong.
Obviously you do,
So you can either focus solely on scientism, and leave the discussion happy that we agree, or we can discuss how we acquire knowledge of the real world, and how we judge how reliable that knowledge is.
you could try dealing with my arguments in the essay
Anonymous said...
Joe: Because they are assumptions. Assumptions come first
What is your point?
Joe: You do not base laws unproven assumptions to be law it has to be established,
But they have been established.
Pix: Why do they have to be there before hand?
Because they are assumptions. so you not understand the concept?
Let us suppose this was not done until after Newton devised his laws of motion. His laws of motion therefore rested on unproven assumptions. Then the assumptions were proven. After that, his laws rested on assumptions that had been confirmed.
Where is the problem?
You don;t base laws upon unproven assumptions, It;s a law because its universal it always works,
Joe: You are trying to reduce all thought to scientific experiment, that is scientism, you are into scientism,
Pix: So the problem with proving the assumptions later, after Newton had already prposed the laws of motion, is - according to Joe - that some guy on the internet is "trying to reduce all thought to scientific experiment"!
Do you want to stick with that Joe?
why don't we try untwisting it, i said they make laws from proven assumptions how does that come out to be "they prove the assumptions latter?" if anyone said that it;you!
It is patently absurd, but at this stage it does not entirely surprise me.
You have totally reversed positions
Joe: You worship science, you need God you are mad at real God so you invent science God, golden calf in lab coat, Science fails in matter of morality and spirituality and ultimate truth Science fails because it can't answer those questions
Pix: Get on that street corner and start preaching hellfire!
;-) hahahha!!!!
P: Because you have clearly abandoned rational argument.
the obvious consequences your arguments,
1. I do not worship science.
It seems to supply those tins that God fills in the life of a believer
2. I do not need God, I do not believe he even exists
You don;t need to believe in God to need God, All people do need God
3. I am not mad at God, I do not believe he even exists
you may not be aware, you might think disbelief cancels any residual feelings about /god but it does not,
4. Science is not God
Of course not ut it takes the place of God in your life
5. I have already noted that science cannot answer questions of morality and spirituality
so what are you arguing about?
Joe: so science is not God.Those things night never be testable but that doesn't make them false.
It makes them uncertain.
Not necessarily. If they work in your life they work.
Again, I wonder if you have a clue what I have been posting about. Right in my first post I said this:
Noting that, science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. Philosophy and theology have some interesting opinions, but they can give us no reassurance that those opinions are right. Science does.
spoken like a true believer, Science is your savior it takes the place of God in your life,
Pix I suggest you actually read it before you post again, and see if you can get some idea of what I am saying.
You jut said it, do yo not understand the consequences of the ideas you embrace?
Joe: You are just basing truth on the physical world in front of you as I said, that proves my point I made about you.
I am basing what I believe to be true on how reliable the information is.
You already admitted science is not reliable for morality meaning or how to live,
Pix
12:35 PM Delete
Blogger 7th Stooge said...
Pix: 7th: So the 'observable' world is analyzable through abstraction. This is what science does. The underlying principles, although they may be confirmed empirically, are not scientifically derived but known trough abstraction.
Okay. So what?
You're assuming that the only 'real knowledge' is the type that cashes out through observable verification. Do you see that you are begging the question? You assume that the 'real world' is the observable world, so you are defining terms to fit your scientism.
Pix: So what is the example? The laws of nature? I think I must be missing something here, but re-reading what you said, I have no idea what.
There are aspects of reality that are not physical in nature, like metaphysical and logical truths, values, etc. Reality is not just physical reality.
But all I am seeing is claims from direct experience or confirmed by the scientific methods.
all hail science its the only way to think, I don;t worship lord science.
Do you think that there are any truths that are not physical in nature? What about the ones you have been expressing on this board?
Pix: I am. Geometry in Euclidean space is an abstraction. It just so happens it models the real world pretty well, and so can be used to model it (as long as there are no strong gravity sources). We consider Euclidean space to be a good model because we can test its predictions; we can use the scientific method to confirm that it is good.
as I said your only concept of reality is the physical world,
We could devise another model, perhaps 2d space. It exists in the abstract just the same as Euclidean space. However, it does not match what we observe in the real world.
Do you see the difference? Both are abstract, but one is a good model, one is not.
science and religion do not complete they do not seek to deal with the same aspects of reality,
following statement is prefect rebuttal to Pix
Again, you're assuming, without argument, that the "real world" is the physical, observable world. That's begging the crucial question. Can you see that? We are both expressing putative truths on ere all the time that are not physical or observable.
So Joe wants me to address the arguments in the essay. I will pick out some gems:
Joe: Kuntz tells us "Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths; a disturbing trend that has gone unnoticed by a majority of scientists.[2] Postmodernism undermines all truth. Kuntz wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH! You Know I believe in truth but I don't believe science is the one and only truth,
This is the crux of it - the straw man at the heart of the matter.
What Kuntz said: Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths
What Joe wants us to think Kuntz said: Science is THE TRUTH!
Kuntz did not say that, but Joe has no qualms twisting Kuntz's words to suit his agenda.
Joe's essay is a response to Kuntz's article, but you need to read that article to see that Kuntz is not saying science is the only valid way to think, as Joe would have is believe, Kuntz point is that science is being undermined from various sides, and this is a bad thing.
Climate change deniers undermine science so they can drive their gas-guzzler, which is bad for the climate. Anti-vaxxers undermine science so they can rationalise their refusal to get immunised, and so childhood diseases like measles are on the rise. Creationists undermine science to support their religious beliefs. This is what Kuntz is talking about; he is urging his fellow scientists to take action, to promote good science wherever possible.
Of course Joe, like the rest, is keen to undermine science because it threatens his religious beliefs, and hence this post.
Joe: Yet when we frame it as "objective," even though it can be called that in a relative way, we set up the validity of the Postmodern critique, it is this very swaggering claim to the one and only truth that postmodernists are reacting against. ... Go's love is a universal truth, ...
I am quoting this for the hilarious juxtaposition of science and its "very swaggering claim" to objectivity, compared to Joe's claim that God's love is a universal truth.
I would love to know why he thinks God's love is a universal truth - but of course when Joe makes a "very swaggering claim" he sees no reason to support it. He is a Christian! He does not have to prove anything! It says it in the Bible, and we are all to assume the Bible is true.
And, of course, this is the point. Religious claims are made on the flimsiest of evidence, and yet made with absolute certainty.
Joe: Because they are assumptions. so you not understand the concept?
They are assumptions that have subsequently been established.
Pix: Let us suppose this was not done until after Newton devised his laws of motion. His laws of motion therefore rested on unproven assumptions. Then the assumptions were proven. After that, his laws rested on assumptions that had been confirmed.
Joe: You don;t base laws upon unproven assumptions, It;s a law because its universal it always works,
Correct, you base them on proven assumptions.
Joe: why don't we try untwisting it, i said they make laws from proven assumptions how does that come out to be "they prove the assumptions latter?" if anyone said that it;you!
As long as we agree "they make laws from proven assumptions", that is fine with me.
Joe: You have totally reversed positions
Prove it. Quote what my position was before and after this supposed reversal.
As usual, a theist makes a claim totally unsupported by evidence. We are just supposed to take his word for it.
Pix
Joe: so what are you arguing about?
You really do not know, do you? After all these posts.... Read these paragraphs from my OP, and tell me which ones you are struggling with. In particular, please note that in number 5 I said there were areas science is not applicable to.
1. Science is not the only source of truth, and I do not believe any reputable scientist or philosophy has ever said it is.
2. What science claims is to be a good model for the truth, not the actual truth. This is why science is on-going - scientists are still trying to improve the model, a tacit admission it is not perfect.
3. Noting that, science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience. Philosophy and theology have some interesting opinions, but they can give us no reassurance that those opinions are right. Science does.
4. Sure it is your opinion that Jesus was resurrected, but it is just opinion. The evidence is ambiguous and as readily supports other opinions. Compare to the theory of relativity.
5. Sure you can - and almost certainly will - point out that there are areas science is not applicable to. But that does not magically make an opinion in that area any more reliable.
Joe: Not necessarily. If they work in your life they work.
The idea that the world is flat worked for a lot of people a few thousand yearts ago, but it was still wrong. Even astronomers thought the earth was the centre of the universe until just a few centuries ago. That belief worked for them, even when doing calculations on the movement of the planets. It was still wrong.
Sure, you might be right. But this is about how reliable your knowledge is, and "might be" is not going to cut it. I might roll a six on a dice, but I will not reliably roll a six.
Joe: spoken like a true believer, Science is your savior it takes the place of God in your life,
What utter nonsense! I find it bizarre that to defend religious belief you are obliged to imply that that science is wrong because it is a religion. If you have any point here at all then it is founded on the admission that religious belief is unreliable.
And it fails. I do not believe the claims of science for religious reasons, I believe them because of the way science is done. The scientific method gives reliable knowledge. You pretending science is a religion does not make that any less true.
And really it only makes your own religion and act of worship look kind of pathetic if it is comparable to how I regard science.
Joe: You jut said it, do yo not understand the consequences of the ideas you embrace?
So talk me through it. But start with something I actually said, not another of your straw men.
Joe: You already admitted science is not reliable for morality meaning or how to live,
I sure did, right in my very first post.
That does not magically make claims from other areas reliable. I also said that in the first post too.
Joe: as I said your only concept of reality is the physical world,
Interesting that you offer no alternative here. Why is that? Oh, right, because you know it will get shot down in flames.
Joe: following statement is prefect rebuttal to Pix
Heaven forbid you should address my response to it!
Pix
Anonymous said...
So Joe wants me to address the arguments in the essay. I will pick out some gems:
Joe: Kuntz tells us "Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths; a disturbing trend that has gone unnoticed by a majority of scientists.[2] Postmodernism undermines all truth. Kuntz wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH! You Know I believe in truth but I don't believe science is the one and only truth,
This is the crux of it - the straw man at the heart of the matter.
I am not sure if you really know what a straw man is. I don't think I have misunderstood what your view is but if I have that doesn't make my argument a straw man,
What Kuntz said: Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths
That is a very simplistic reading of postmodernism.
What Joe wants us to think Kuntz said: Science is THE TRUTH!
why would you think I even agree with him
Kuntz did not say that, but Joe has no qualms twisting Kuntz's words to suit his agenda.
I did not quote that as his words ignorant one, It's my view my understanding that this is what he thinks that is not a starwman not doing anything wrong with his quotes, even if I;m wrong its just honest misinterpretation but I don;t think I am,
where did I quote him saying it? where do you quote him? you have not proved your point. one place I quote reference his view is in FN3 I say
"Kuntz wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH! You Know I believe in truth but I don't believe science is the one and only truth," Not a direct quote.
Joe's essay is a response to Kuntz's article, but you need to read that article to see that Kuntz is not saying science is the only valid way to think, as Joe would have is believe, Kuntz point is that science is being undermined from various sides, and this is a bad thing.
I think it clear he is a bit of a scientismist
Climate change deniers undermine science so they can drive their gas-guzzler, which is bad for the climate. Anti-vaxxers undermine science so they can rationalise their refusal to get immunised, and so childhood diseases like measles are on the rise. Creationists undermine science to support their religious beliefs. This is what Kuntz is talking about; he is urging his fellow scientists to take action, to promote good science wherever possible.
No doubt that is part of what He is saying and I do agree with him to that extent, Even scientism freaks and I are allied against Trumpies and republicans. That is not all there is to it. You can;t sweep it all under that one rug
Pix: Of course Joe, like the rest, is keen to undermine science because it threatens his religious beliefs, and hence this post.
The science worshiper can't stand for science to be criticized,a criticism of science for them is blasphemy. It's a good thing for Pix he wasn't in any of my PhD classes he could not have stood it because those professors were always criticizing science.
Joe: Yet when we frame it as "objective," even though it can be called that in a relative way, we set up the validity of the Postmodern critique, it is this very swaggering claim to the one and only truth that postmodernists are reacting against. ... Go's love is a universal truth, ...
I am quoting this for the hilarious juxtaposition of science and its "very swaggering claim" to objectivity, compared to Joe's claim that God's love is a universal truth.
I would love to know why he thinks God's love is a universal truth - but of course when Joe makes a "very swaggering claim" he sees no reason to support it. He is a Christian! He does not have to prove anything! It says it in the Bible, and we are all to assume the Bible is true.
that is bull shit, unfair, and its stupid! Most of what i've said is about that,Ive made 52 God arguments and argue many of them often. I don;t have to prove God every time I talk abut Him, I don;t expect you to prove science every time you ,mentioned it,
Pix:And, of course, this is the point. Religious claims are made on the flimsiest of evidence, and yet made with absolute certainty.
Religious claims are based upon the strongest evidence direct personal experience backed by logic. he can only accept empirical facts as evidence because because he's afraid to trust a will other than his own, he has to trust to buy into science but he's willing because he does''t have to give his will to another,
Joe: Because they are assumptions. so you not understand the concept?
PixL they are assumptions that have subsequently been established,
No they only base laws on established assumptions not unestabished;you are confusing the method that evolved out of science with the history of scientific thought. Scientific method had to evolve,Read the Burtt book.
Pix: Let us suppose this was not done until after Newton devised his laws of motion. His laws of motion therefore rested on unproven assumptions. Then the assumptions were proven. After that, his laws rested on assumptions that had been confirmed.
Do you really think Newton said I;m going to write some stuff and call them laws and someday someone will prove them and they will really be laws? Do you think Newton was an idiot? he did not make up bull shit then try to prove it he didn't call it laws before it was proven. You need to read Leviathan ad the air pump.
Joe: You don;t base laws upon unproven assumptions, It;s a law because its universal it always works,
Px: Correct, you base them on proven assumptions.
what I've been saying so you are switching?
Joe: why don't we try untwisting it, i said they make laws from proven assumptions how does that come out to be "they prove the assumptions latter?" if anyone said that it;you!
Px:As long as we agree "they make laws from proven assumptions", that is fine with me.
we are going to have to play chess
Joe: You have totally reversed positions
Prove it. Quote what my position was before and after this supposed reversal.
Before: "Pix: Why do they have to be there before hand? Let us suppose this was not done until after Newton devised his laws of motion. His laws of motion therefore rested on unproven assumptions. Then the assumptions were proven. After that, his laws rested on assumptions that had been confirmed.
Where is the problem?"
After: "As long as we agree "they make laws from proven assumptions", that is fine with me."
Joe: I am not sure if you really know what a straw man is. I don't think I have misunderstood what your view is but if I have that doesn't make my argument a straw man,
When you persist in it as long as you have, it looks like a straw man. I can only point it out to you so long.
Here are three I listed earlier. I note you have chosen not to address them. Why is that? I think it is because you know you have no defense. You were caught in three straw man fallacies.
Your straw man: I think any time you adopting an idea hypothetically you have science ("That does not mean any time you do that you have science.")
The truth: I think adopting an idea hypothetically is just one part of scientific methodology.
Your straw man: I am arguing that religion is disproven ("That does not disprove religion")
The truth: I am arguing the knowledge from religion is less reliable
Your straw man: I believe science is the only way to think ("you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.")
The truth: Science is the most reliable source of knowledge outside direct experience
Pix: What Kuntz said: Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths
Joe: That is a very simplistic reading of postmodernism.
He is not claiming it is a "reading of postmodernism", he is saying it is an unwanted consequence of postmodernism. Straw man or have you misunderstood? Either you are very bad at understanding what people say, or habitually feel obliged to create straw men.
Joe: why would you think I even agree with him
And again! Wow. Three responses, three straw men. I assuredly do NOT think you agree with him, I am sure you do not.
Joe: I did not quote that as his words ignorant one, It's my view my understanding that this is what he thinks that is not a starwman not doing anything wrong with his quotes, even if I;m wrong its just honest misinterpretation but I don;t think I am,
Well you got it wrong. Your whole article is founded on a misunderstanding. Or straw man.
Joe: where did I quote him saying it? where do you quote him? you have not proved your point. one place I quote reference his view is in FN3 I say
You seem very proud of the fact that you failed to quote the guy you were arguing against. I guess a straw man is easier that way.
Joe: "Kuntz wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH! You Know I believe in truth but I don't believe science is the one and only truth," Not a direct quote.
No, not a direct quote. Because that is NOT WHAT HE SAYS! It is a straw man.
Joe: I think it clear he is a bit of a scientismist
I think it clear you want to present him that way. But that does not make it true, Joe.
Joe: No doubt that is part of what He is saying and I do agree with him to that extent, Even scientism freaks and I are allied against Trumpies and republicans. That is not all there is to it. You can;t sweep it all under that one rug
And neither can you just make it up. He does NOT say he wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH. That is something you made up.
Joe: The science worshiper can't stand for science to be criticized,a criticism of science for them is blasphemy. It's a good thing for Pix he wasn't in any of my PhD classes he could not have stood it because those professors were always criticizing science.
So basically your argument comes down to a whole bunch of "misunderstanding" - or straw men, as the rest of the world calls them - and your ridiculous (and self-defeating) notion that science is a religion, and therefore necessarily wrong.
Pix
Pix: I would love to know why he thinks God's love is a universal truth - but of course when Joe makes a "very swaggering claim" he sees no reason to support it. He is a Christian! He does not have to prove anything! It says it in the Bible, and we are all to assume the Bible is true.
Joe: that is bull shit, unfair, and its stupid!
Of course, when YOU are asked to support a claim about your religion it "is bull shit, unfair, and its stupid". Heaven forbid a Christian should ever have to do such a thing!
And THIS is why religion is unreliable.
Joe: Most of what i've said is about that,Ive made 52 God arguments and argue many of them often. I don;t have to prove God every time I talk abut Him, I don;t expect you to prove science every time you ,mentioned it,
Which of those arguments is PROOF?
I seem to remember you making a big deal about ration warrant. Why would you do that if you have PROOF? You would not. The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion.
Joe: No they only base laws on established assumptions not unestabished;you are confusing the method that evolved out of science with the history of scientific thought. Scientific method had to evolve,Read the Burtt book.
Can you actually make an argument? All you have is this insinuation, but to me it looks empty.
If you think Newton's laws, say, are based on an unproved assumption, say what it is. Say exactly how it is bad science. Present the reasoning.
Joe: Do you really think Newton said I;m going to write some stuff and call them laws and someday someone will prove them and they will really be laws? Do you think Newton was an idiot? he did not make up bull shit then try to prove it he didn't call it laws before it was proven. You need to read Leviathan ad the air pump.
I think Newton's laws were a big part of establishing the assumption that the universe follows laws (if it was not done earlier). Newton established that at the same time as he established his laws.
Joe: Before: "Pix: Why do they have to be there before hand? Let us suppose this was not done until after Newton devised his laws of motion. His laws of motion therefore rested on unproven assumptions. Then the assumptions were proven. After that, his laws rested on assumptions that had been confirmed.
After: "As long as we agree "they make laws from proven assumptions", that is fine with me."
I do not know when they were established, but I guess before or by Newton. However - and this is important - I invented a hypothetical situation where it happened afterward. Do you see where I said "Let us suppose"? That indicates that what follows is hypothetical.
Even in the hypothetical situation in which the assumption was established later, the fact that it was established at some point means his laws are good, reliable science.
Pix
Jim (7th stooge) was having computer problems and so i am posting this for him, He wrote it.
Pix: 7th: You're assuming that the only 'real knowledge' is the type that cashes out through observable verification. Do you see that you are begging the question? You assume that the 'real world' is the observable world, so you are defining terms to fit your scientism.
No, I do not get it. How is that a circular argument?
Because you're defining 'reality' as that to which science would necessarily have privileged access (physical, observable reality). So you're defining 'reality' in a way that is favorable to scientism. (Scientism defined as "Science provides the most reliable form of knowledge.")
Yes, I assume that the 'real world' is the observable world. If your argument has any value then you need to show that that is not the case for anything besides "I exist" and purely abstract claims. Otherwise you are rejecting all knowledge, not just science.
But it's not just for "I exist" but for all first-person experiences and for many judgments drawn form those experiences. These are not observable. I don't observe that I'm conscious because my consciousness enables me to observe! And that last point is a philosophical conclusion that's true but not directly the result of observation.
Also, as I've said, moral propositions, like causing suffering, are true but not observable. Same for the metaphysical propositions science is based on. Scientific data can't be more reliable than the propositions it depends on.
Pix: I agree that reality is not just physical reality, but there is a difference between reality and abstract. Logical truths are abstract.
7th: Do you think that there are any truths that are not physical in nature? What about the ones you have been expressing on this board?
Sure.
So what are you saying exactly? You seem to not be sure yourself. First you say that reality is broader than just physical reality, but then you draw a distinction between "reality" and "abstract". What, to you, would be the part of reality outside of physical reality?
part 2 Jim:
Pix: What exactly do you mean by "truth"?
For me, "truth" is that which maps accurately to the real world. I am not begging the question; the "real world" is the physical, observable world because that is what I understand "truth" to mean.
Okay, so here you clearly contradict yourself, because immediately above you wrote:
"I agree that reality is not just physical reality..."
Which is it?! If the latter, then you are defining 'reality' without argument in a way that is favorable to your conclusion, which is a form of 'soft' scientism. IOW, you're begging the question.
For example, God undoubtedly exists as a concept, given we are able to discuss the concept. But to me, it does not then necessarily follow that "God exists" is a true claim because the claim is not true of the physical, observable world (if you prefer, substitute "ghost" for "God", and see if that works better for you).
That does not mean every truth is physical in nature, but it does mean they relate to the physical world. If God exists, then he relates to the physical world - that is what "exists" means. If ghosts exists, then they relate in some way to the physical world.
Okay, so this is confusing. For you, at least in this version immediately above, 'reality' is the physical, observable world, although you offer no argument to justify that position. But then you say that there are truths that are not physical in nature, although they must relate to the physical world in some way. Relate in a verificationist sense? But if that's the case, then the physical world could only verify their truth but not MAKE them true. The physical world would merely be the way we humans would know those things are true. I am using 'truth' in the sense that something maps onto reality whether any finite mind knows it or not.
Pix:I get the impression you are using "truth" is another sense. Certainly there are truths that follow from abstract ideas in maths and logic, so I am not saying your usage is wrong, but it is different to mine, so perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here.
No, I'm using 'truth' in a correspondence sense like you, but I'm defining 'reality' in a broader sense as everything that is the case.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: I am not sure if you really know what a straw man is. I don't think I have misunderstood what your view is but if I have that doesn't make my argument a straw man,
Pix: When you persist in it as long as you have, it looks like a straw man. I can only point it out to you so long.
I've seen this before, the atheist says 'I don't worship science.' then every thing else they say reflects the worship of science. As long as you betray such a potation I will call you on it. That is not a straw man.
Pix: Here are three I listed earlier. I note you have chosen not to address them. Why is that? I think it is because you know you have no defense. You were caught in three straw man fallacies.
I am guessing I devastated them you just ignore it,
PX:Your straw man: I think any time you adopting an idea hypothetically you have science ("That does not mean any time you do that you have science.")
The truth: I think adopting an idea hypothetically is just one part of scientific methodology.
scientism's tendency to a absorb all other kinds of thought into itself. That proves to me you think science is the only way to think. Anything you see the other guy does that you like you call science; science is all there is.
Px: Your straw man: I am arguing that religion is disproven ("That does not disprove religion")
You are saying that you don't really argue religion is disproven but i am making a straw man by assuming that you do? As I feared you do not know what a straw man is. That is not one. Stop using that term you use it wrongly. If I a wrong in how you see things I am merely wrong, not a straw man. But I don't think I'm wrong. The fact that you keep doing it that Makes me think I'm right. Here's what you are doing, Charlie Brown accuses Linus of being in love with their teacher he says: "I am not in love with her Charlie Brown, I merely happen to be very fond of the ground on which she walks.
Some statements that betray your position. You say "religion is based upon the flimsiest kind of knowledge," you have many such statements, then you assert "don't you know the distinction between this and dis proof? these are not the same thing," No they are not, the difference is as important as the difference between my hair and yours. The individual hairs
your head are thicker than mine and harder to split.
Px: The truth: I am arguing the knowledge from religion is less reliable
In particle terms you might as well argue that it's disproven because it comes to the same thing at the end of the day. One is just as wrong as the other. The mystical experiences studies blow all unbelief out of the water! your whole argument of unreliability goes out the window with those studies.
Px: Your straw man: I believe science is the only way to think ("you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.")
The truth: Science is the most reliable source of knowledge outside direct experience
Excellent example of splitting hairs. Science is not the only way to think it; just all the others suck, how stupid! of course that is the same as saying it's the only way to think. The big important difference is totally a matter how thin you split the hair.,I'm not saying it;s the only way I'm just saying it;s the only way that matters. big deal@
Pix: What Kuntz said: Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths
Joe: That is a very simplistic reading of postmodernism.
He is not claiming it is a "reading of postmodernism",
Look professor any time one takes analysis of anything they are reading it, that's the way lit crit people talk, in the university go take a class, any understanding is a reading and any thing he says is his understanding, go take a class.
he is saying it is an unwanted consequence of postmodernism. Straw man or have you misunderstood? Either you are very bad at understanding what people say, or habitually feel obliged to create straw men.
or it could be that I know more about posterminism than you do because i studied it at the phD level and you did not, you are ignorant of what's being said, I am not saying you are ignorant, I;m saying you don't know anything, don't you ee the difference it's real important,
Joe: why would you think I even agree with him
And again! Wow. Three responses, three straw men. I assuredly do NOT think you agree with him, I am sure you do not.
you can;t even follow your own line of reasoning
Joe: I did not quote that as his words ignorant one, It's my view my understanding that this is what he thinks that is not a starwman not doing anything wrong with his quotes, even if I;m wrong its just honest misinterpretation but I don;t think I am,
Well you got it wrong. Your whole article is founded on a misunderstanding. Or straw man.
You are using the term strawman wrong, you don't know what the term means. stop using it, You do not understand kuntz' article, you make assumptions about based un a surface reading you have not bothered to realy analyze what I said,
Joe: where did I quote him saying it? where do you quote him? you have not proved your point. one place I quote reference his view is in FN3 I say
Px:You seem very proud of the fact that you failed to quote the guy you were arguing against. I guess a straw man is easier that way.
You made accusation that I quoted wrong, can you not follow your own argent?
Joe: "Kuntz wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH! You Know I believe in truth but I don't believe science is the one and only truth," Not a direct quote.
No, not a direct quote. Because that is NOT WHAT HE SAYS! It is a straw man.
stop miscuing that term, you have proven you don;t know what
it means,
Joe: I think it clear he is a bit of a scientismist
I think it clear you want to present him that way. But that does not make it true, Joe.
Joe: No doubt that is part of what He is saying and I do agree with him to that extent, Even scientism freaks and I are allied against Trumpies and republicans. That is not all there is to it. You can;t sweep it all under that one rug
And neither can you just make it up. He does NOT say he wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH. That is something you made up.
Privileging your position is the everyone wants to do he doesn;t have to say it, It;s like arguing with a five year old,,
Joe: The science worshiper can't stand for science to be criticized,a criticism of science for them is blasphemy. It's a good thing for Pix he wasn't in any of my PhD classes he could not have stood it because those professors were always criticizing science.
So basically your argument comes down to a whole bunch of "misunderstanding" - or straw men, as the rest of the world calls them - and your ridiculous (and self-defeating) notion that science is a religion, and therefore necessarily wrong.
the evolution of his misuse of starw man and advanced to a point where he uses it as another way if sying "he;s wrong." let' remember his original use is wrong the argument is meaingkess
Px please read this but don't respond because i;m going to use this as the basis for next weeks post.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Pix: I would love to know why he thinks God's love is a universal truth - but of course when Joe makes a "very swaggering claim" he sees no reason to support it. He is a Christian! He does not have to prove anything! It says it in the Bible, and we are all to assume the Bible is true.
Joe: that is bull shit, unfair, and its stupid!
Of course, when YOU are asked to support a claim about your religion it "is bull shit, unfair, and its stupid". Heaven forbid a Christian should ever have to do such a thing!
And THIS is why religion is unreliable.
Joe: Most of what i've said is about that,Ive made 52 God arguments and argue many of them often. I don;t have to prove God every time I talk abut Him, I don;t expect you to prove science every time you ,mentioned it,
Which of those arguments is PROOF?
Pick one
I seem to remember you making a big deal about ration warrant. Why would you do that if you have PROOF? You would not. The reality is that you have a variety of arguments that kind of suggest God exists. But you then magically convert them into absolute certainty because... It is religion.
More of your tendency to reduce complexity to fragments that you can sweep under the rug,
Joe: No they only base laws on established assumptions not unestabished;you are confusing the method that evolved out of science with the history of scientific thought. Scientific method had to evolve,Read the Burtt book.
Can you actually make an argument? All you have is this insinuation, but to me it looks empty.
If you think Newton's laws, say, are based on an unproved assumption, say what it is. Say exactly how it is bad science. Present the reasoning.
Joe: Do you really think Newton said I;m going to write some stuff and call them laws and someday someone will prove them and they will really be laws? Do you think Newton was an idiot? he did not make up bull shit then try to prove it he didn't call it laws before it was proven. You need to read Leviathan ad the air pump.
I think Newton's laws were a big part of establishing the assumption that the universe follows laws (if it was not done earlier). Newton established that at the same time as he established his laws.
Joe: Before: "Pix: Why do they have to be there before hand? Let us suppose this was not done until after Newton devised his laws of motion. His laws of motion therefore rested on unproven assumptions. Then the assumptions were proven. After that, his laws rested on assumptions that had been confirmed.
After: "As long as we agree "they make laws from proven assumptions", that is fine with me."
PX: I do not know when they were established, but I guess before or by Newton. However - and this is important - I invented a hypothetical situation where it happened afterward. Do you see where I said "Let us suppose"? That indicates that what follows is hypothetical.
o you are trying to do damage control after making a a major contradiction
That is so irrelevant, you ignored the basis of my argument now you are trying to say that ignoring the argument won the argument! no you lose an argument when you ignore it. But you have done more you have admitted to my argument, those assumptions were validated before science was advanced so they validate other methods. the fact that they were latter proven right by science just means that science validates the other methids,
PX: Even in the hypothetical situation in which the assumption was established later, the fact that it was established at some point means his laws are good, reliable science.
yes and the fact that they were first validated by those other methods proves those other methods,
7th: Because you're defining 'reality' as that to which science would necessarily have privileged access (physical, observable reality). So you're defining 'reality' in a way that is favorable to scientism. (Scientism defined as "Science provides the most reliable form of knowledge.")
I cannot see any other way to define it that is meaningful.
7th: But it's not just for "I exist" but for all first-person experiences and for many judgments drawn form those experiences. These are not observable. I don't observe that I'm conscious because my consciousness enables me to observe! And that last point is a philosophical conclusion that's true but not directly the result of observation.
Those first-person experiences and for many judgments drawn form those experiences all necessarily assume that the 'real world' is the observable world, just as science does. My direct experience tells me there is a computer in front of me, but I am assuming that what I observe is the real world.
7th: Also, as I've said, moral propositions, like causing suffering, are true but not observable.
I have never said truth is restricted to only that which can be observed.
7th: Same for the metaphysical propositions science is based on. Scientific data can't be more reliable than the propositions it depends on.
If you mean the assumption that what we observe is the real world, then I agree, and have never said otherwise. But - as I keep saying - the same is true for everything besides "I exist". All first-person experiences and for many judgments drawn form those experiences you just mentioned are based on that metaphysical proposition.
If there is another metaphysical proposition you are thinking about, then please state exactly what it is.
7th: So what are you saying exactly? You seem to not be sure yourself. First you say that reality is broader than just physical reality, but then you draw a distinction between "reality" and "abstract". What, to you, would be the part of reality outside of physical reality?
Such things as emotions, minds, fields and even perhaps morality all exist but would generally not be considered to be physical (depending on what "physical" means exactly).
7th: Okay, so here you clearly contradict yourself, because immediately above you wrote:
"I agree that reality is not just physical reality..."
Which is it?! If the latter, then you are defining 'reality' without argument in a way that is favorable to your conclusion, which is a form of 'soft' scientism. IOW, you're begging the question.
Reality is that which actually exists. Minds actually exist, but are not physical. Magnetic fields actually exist, but are not physical.
Pix
7th: Okay, so this is confusing. For you, at least in this version immediately above, 'reality' is the physical, observable world, although you offer no argument to justify that position. But then you say that there are truths that are not physical in nature, although they must relate to the physical world in some way. Relate in a verificationist sense? But if that's the case, then the physical world could only verify their truth but not MAKE them true. The physical world would merely be the way we humans would know those things are true. I am using 'truth' in the sense that something maps onto reality whether any finite mind knows it or not.
There is a distinction between what actually is reality, and how we understand or know it.
Reality is not only the observable world - that would imply reality gets bigger as science gets better at observing it, which is nonsense. Reality is not restricted to only the physical, as I said before, but it only includes that that actually exists, as opposed to say things we imagine.
I have no problem with there being truths that are not themselves physical, but are still part of reality. But yes, they have to relate to reality in some way. Consider the claim "Dragons can breath fire". Is that reality? We have a concept of dragons, and that concept often includes that they can breath fire. But dragons are not real; the claim therefore does not relate to the physical world.
With regards to, say, the laws of logic, these are abstract ideas that exist separate to the physical world, but have been shown to be a good model for how the physical world is.
I am not exactly sure what you are asking, but I hope that goes some way to answer it.
7th: No, I'm using 'truth' in a correspondence sense like you, but I'm defining 'reality' in a broader sense as everything that is the case.
Okay, so I guess then that your truth includes truths about the abstract. We can construct a mathematical world, and derive truths about that abstract world. That is all well and good, but it would be wrong to conclude that those truths necessarily apply to our world. They are not necessarily knowledge about reality.
A more concrete example would be to enter a virtual world, and to think that what happens in the virtual world is true of the real world. In most computer games, a burning stick is never consumed. In your terms, it is the case that the fire does not consume the stick. Is that true of our world? Obviously not. So in what sense is that a "truth"? I take the view that this is not knowledge of reality as it does not relate to the real, physical world.
Pix
Pix: When you persist in it as long as you have, it looks like a straw man. I can only point it out to you so long.
Joe: I've seen this before, the atheist says 'I don't worship science.' then every thing else they say reflects the worship of science. As long as you betray such a potation I will call you on it. That is not a straw man.
That is not a straw man... It is just nonsense.
And that was not what I was referring to as a straw man, so you have even built a straw man about a straw man!
Pix: Your straw man: I am arguing that religion is disproven ("That does not disprove religion")
The truth: I am arguing the knowledge from religion is less reliable
Joe: You are saying that you don't really argue religion is disproven but i am making a straw man by assuming that you do?
I am saying that no where in this discussion have I even attempted to prove religion is wrong. When you pretend that that is what I am arguing, then that is a straw man. It is as simple as that.
Joe: As I feared you do not know what a straw man is. That is not one. Stop using that term you use it wrongly. If I a wrong in how you see things I am merely wrong, not a straw man. But I don't think I'm wrong.
Then you really are clueless?
Are you really saying that your whole post is based on misunderstanding Kuntz? If so, I suggest you put a comment on there, because right now it looks like deceit.
Joe: Some statements that betray your position. You say "religion is based upon the flimsiest kind of knowledge," you have many such statements, then you assert "don't you know the distinction between this and dis proof? these are not the same thing," No they are not, the difference is as important as the difference between my hair and yours. The individual hairs your head are thicker than mine and harder to split.
I believe God does not exist. But I have not at any point in this discussion argued that God does not exist. When you say "That does not disprove religion" you are implying that I have attempted to disprove religion. That is not true.
Yes, I said "religion is based upon the flimsiest kind of knowledge" but that does not of itself make religion wrong, and I have never said that that makes it wrong in this discussion. Again and again you make stuff like this up. You pretend I am arguing something I am not.
Your original post is the same. You are pretending Kuntz said one thing, when the truth is that he said something different. You have made it up, and then you proceed to attack it. As far as I know, the term for that is a straw man.
You want me to believe it was a misunderstanding, and not deliberate deceit on your part? Go back and re-read what Kuntz said - and I mean his actual words, not what you think he said - and see if you can find anything he said that supports this:
"Kuntz wants to privilege his view as THE TRUTH!"
If you can, quote it here. If you cannot, then add an addendum to your original post admitting you were wrong.
Pix
Pix: Your straw man: I am arguing that religion is disproven ("That does not disprove religion")
The truth: I am arguing the knowledge from religion is less reliable
Joe: In particle terms you might as well argue that it's disproven because it comes to the same thing at the end of the day. One is just as wrong as the other. ...
They are two different things. You just find it convenient to conflate the two.
Pix: Your straw man: I believe science is the only way to think ("you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.")
The truth: Science is the most reliable source of knowledge outside direct experience
Joe: Excellent example of splitting hairs. Science is not the only way to think it; just all the others suck, how stupid! of course that is the same as saying it's the only way to think. The big important difference is totally a matter how thin you split the hair.,I'm not saying it;s the only way I'm just saying it;s the only way that matters. big deal@
Again, these are different things. You are now conflating "way of thinking" with "knowledge", and "most reliable" with "only"!
This is not just a failing of philosophy but basic English! Are your English skills really so woeful?
Pix previously: What Kuntz said: Postmodernist thought is being used to attack the scientific worldview and undermine scientific truths
Joe previously: That is a very simplistic reading of postmodernism.
Pix: He is not claiming it is a "reading of postmodernism",
Joe: Look professor any time one takes analysis of anything they are reading it, that's the way lit crit people talk, in the university go take a class, any understanding is a reading and any thing he says is his understanding, go take a class.
What on earth are you talking about? You clearly stated that you think Kuntz reading of postmodernism is "very simplistic". I quoted it above so no one can be in any doubt about what you said. And yet all Kuntz said was about how other people were using postmodernism. He attempts no read of postmodernism himself at all!
So how can it be "very simplistic"?
It clearly cannot. And when this is pointed out to you, how do you respond? With a whole bunch of irrelevant nonsense!
Joe: or it could be that I know more about posterminism than you do because i studied it at the phD level and you did not, you are ignorant of what's being said, I am not saying you are ignorant, I;m saying you don't know anything, don't you ee the difference it's real important,
Joe, you do not understand the difference between "way of thinking" and "knowledge", or between "most reliable" and "only"! You really expect me to believe you know anything about postmodernism? I know nothing about it, and I still think I know more than you, because at least I can comprehend English.
Furthermore, knowledge of postmodernism is irrelevant to what Kuntz actually said. Which you would know if you could comprehend basic English.
Having looked through the rest of your posts, I can see no actual substance there, so I will just skip the lot. Your claim of a "major contradiction" is laughable, and down entirely to your inability to comprehend English - go ask somewhat what "Let us suppose" means.
Pix
Joe previously: That is a very simplistic reading of postmodernism.
Pix: He is not claiming it is a "reading of postmodernism",
any view of view of something written is a reading, go to grad school.
I'm closing the thread its too log
Post a Comment