| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Again, my point, time and time again, is that there is reality. I live in
> it, with you and everyone else. My point, time and time again, is that our
> reality is 'bigger' than what science can explain.
Dave--you do indeed make this point time and time again, but you haven't
yet backed it up in any comprehensible fashion. Can you explain something
that we can verify as part of the universe that can't in principal be
explained by (or as Chris rightly clarified: "explored by") science? By
"verify," I must require you to avoid perceived phenomena such as ESP or
ghosts or the Loch Ness Monster. And once you have come up with such an
example, I'd like you to clarify how you verify that it's part of the universe.
I would further clarify that phenomena such as emotions, memories,
"inspiration," and music aren't really valid examples, since they can in
principal be explained as parts of the physical universe accessible to
scientific explanation.
> Let's talk about the atrocities done due to the pursuit of knowledge
Let's not, because that's completely irrelevant and is frankly a weak
appeal to emotionalism.
> Again, who is without sin can go ahead and trash the other side.
By the way--that's about as useful in the real world as the Ten
Commandments are a comprehensive system of law. You're saying that a person
who steals a pack of gum has no authority to condemn a genocidal murderer.
And that's not a slippery slope, either; it's an express restatement of the
axiom you put forth.
> > _I_ have been a problem in this regard, are you? I haven't been tempted to
> > deride you, I haven't typed Xtian, and I agree that Christmas deserves the
> > place of proper noun in our language. (But we celibrate Newtonmass :-)
> I have not been attributing *you* to these phrases, but this is how this
> thread started--that is the issue. I am sorry if I alluded that you wrote
> this. The thread is what I am responding to, gathering in ideas from other
> posts and ideas and replying to them here.
Just so it doesn't seem that Richard or I have been slinging slurs around,
consider this bit from http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html
> What does 'xian' mean?
> "What does the abbreviation 'xian' mean? Is it an insult?"
> When writing the name "Christ", it is quite common to abbreviate it to X or
> x, representing the first letter (chi) of the Greek XPICTOC khristos. For
> example, "xmas" is a common abbreviation of "Christmas". "Xian" just
> means "Christian".
> According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the
> abbreviation "xian" or "xtian" for "Christian" dates back at least as far as
> 1634. Before that, it was more usual to take the first two letters of
> XPICTOC, and write "xpian" for "Christian". Priests would record Christenings
> using the shorthand "xpen" or "xpn".
> So no, it's not an insult.
And let's not forget that both you and Chris have used the derisive term
"gyped" [sic] to describe a condition of being short-changed. No slight
intended to Chris or you for that, but let's not condemn one perceived slur
while embracing another.
> However, that
> said, by saing that certain people are less than, well, you and me, is
> opening the door to atrocities. Yes is a slippery slope idea but the second
> you think that someone else is beneath you, you have made them less then
> human. I can't remember the quotation, but Jean Luc mentioned it when he
> was being tortured by his Cardassian captor in a TNG ep.
Actually, Picard said something like "if a child is taught to devalue a
person, she can devalue anything, including her parents," and he wasn't
talking about science. Regardless, it's grieviously disingenuous of you to
imply that "Science" is the primary tool by which people are dehumanized.
For a much better example of a dehumanizing mechanism, I point you to that
institution known as religion.
> You and I hold different opinions on this. I'm not being willfully stubborn
> in thinking there is a God. To me, it doesn't matter if you don't believe
> in God, and it shouldn't matter that I do--we can still carry on a
> conversation and debate about issues.
>
> But for some who have to belittle a race, a nation, a belief system, well
> that's a different kettle of fish then, isn't it?
"Belittle" implies a sort of irrational and baseless "I'm better 'cuz I sez
so" sort of thought process, when that's simply not the case here.
> Your point about purple and red [preferences] is outside the realm of
> science
Is it? Is it really? How about this as a hypothetical explanation:
Due to a microscopic neurological structure in your brain, certain neurons
respond to the chemicals released when your visual center process the color
purple. The response of those neurons leads to a more relaxed (or happy, or
aroused, or generally pleasant) state of mental activity, even at the deeply
subconscious level, and that response in turn leads you to favor the color
purple in preference to red or puce or indigo.
Granted, that's an off-the-rack and arbitrary summation, but do you see
how in principal the topic can be addressed by science?
> but why do I like purple? I just do.
By saying "I just do," you are expressly refusing to explore the question,
and since that is the antithesis of scientific thinking, you can hardly
condemn science on those terms. Further, you're simply assuming that
there's something metaphysical about color preference, and you therefore say
"science can't address it." But that's circular reasoning and deliberately
ignores the actual issue.
> You answered my very problem by saying 'even a gut isn't going to explain
> everything about the universe'. Thank you. That's all I wanted.
Why do you accept that answer from Chris but refuse opposing answers from
anyone else? That is a classic example of what's called "confirmation bias"
and "selective thinking;" you are inclined to accept Chris' explanation on
that point because you agreed with it before the debate started. With all
due respect to Chris, he's not really the Ambassador of the GUT, so there's
no reason to accept his word on what the GUT can and can't explain (nor
should you accept mine too easily, other than the fact that I say "let's
just wait and see what it can explain.")
> > > Does schooling make you intelligent.
> >
> > Maybe. But it seems off-topic for this thread. Why?
>
>
> 'Cause somewhere in this thread someone asked if I took a science course
> above junior high. My point to that was 'does schooling give you a free
> pass for intelligence?'
You're mischaracterizing Richard's question, which may be paraphrased thus:
Richard: "Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a misunderstanding of
even the most basic and fundamental aspects of science, I am inclined to
question what has been your level of formal exposure to scientific thinking."
Richard made no comment about your intelligence, nor has anyone in the
thread before or since. However, stubbornly clinging to principals shown to
be false indicates a rigidity of thinking not generally considered a
hallmark of intelligence, but which is hardly unique to Creationists, alas.
> > Not in the way that you mean. But it is useful to know where a discussant is
> > coming from.
>
> It is useful to a point, but if someone's a ditchdigger his or her opinion
> is just as valid as the triple PHD.
But in specialized subjects that have right and wrong answers, there's no
reason to treat every contributor as equally able to give informed opinion.
Moreover, one wonders why so many pro-Creationists (who are, therefore,
anti-scientists) are so keen on compiling bogus academic credentials. Ken
Hovind, for instance, touts his PhD from "Patriot University," which is
nothing but a diploma mill located in a split-level ranch.
Of course the answer is that in propagandist discourse (which is, let's be
honest, the entirety of the Creationist rhetorical strategy) degrees imply
authority, and non-critical thinkers respect authority even if the
"authority" is baseless.
> Art, Music, the appreciation for the comfort of candles and hearths, why
> people find curves attractive as opposed to angles (and for some, vice
> versa), all the stuff that makes us *human*, our humanity isn't reduced to a
> column of facts and figures, We ourselves cannot be reduced to a bunch of
> water and chemicals--we're bigger than that.
That's emotionalizing, for the zillionth time. What if we *can* be
reduced to chemicals (water is, by the way, a chemical)? Wouldn't it
actually be more astonishing to you that an ambulatory heap of chemicals
could compose The Ninth Symphony or write King Lear? To me, the desperate
need to externalize human accomplishment by subordinating it all to a
non-verifiable deity is the ultimate dehumanizing act.
> Then I remember free will and such, so *we* do this to
> ourselves and we, like the 5 year old blaming the dog, look to someone else
> to hold responsible, when we just have to look in a mirror.
Why do you require us to look in the mirror for self-condemnation, but you
require us to look to some nebulous higher power for validation of our worth?
> I think that certain aspects of humanity can be explained by the scientific
> method, if given enuf time science will hopefully answer a whole bunch more
> stuff, but science is finite, as is *every* human based institution, and as
> such, cannot be used to figure out the infinite.
Didn't you spend most of another post explaining that the universe is
finite? (Or was that one of the other two-dozen Dave's in this thread?!)
Anyway, many infinite concepts can be handled through logical processes,
such as the basic mathematical concept of the sum-of-the-infinite-series.
In this post in particular you have lapsed from logical reasoning into
emotion-based witnessing, and that sort of testimonialism simply flees the
argument, rather than advancing it. You repeatedly assert your fondness for
science, or at least the ramifications of it, and I accept that to a point.
But it seems that the moment you approach a topic from which you cannot
divorce your emotions, you fall back on "science isn't everything," but you
don't really give a good explanation or a sound alternative.
I respect your emotional inclination to your belief system, and I
absolutely uphold your right to maintain it, but you've entered into a
discussion of the role of science, and you should therefore focus your
comments on the actual issue of science, rather than the emotional
implications of anecdotal aspects of it.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) <huge honkin' snip> I suspect that the idea Dave is trying to get across is that some people promote science and scientific thought as the be-all and end-all of possible knowledge. These people are in their way as close-minded as the extremely (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes, or quotes: (...) I have to admit that this statement must be true. At the same time, and as someone else has pointed out, science is always refining itself and finding new frontiers. So not being (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) God. And to explain that, denies Him. That's *my* faith speaking. Does that make me 'less than' you 'cause I believe and you don't? (...) In principal[sic], God's universe is being explained right now via science. So again, I have no problem (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) The quest for knowledge will just dissipate when we get there? A fundamental human significance--the pursuit of learning--will promptly poof when all that science can teach us is known? Yes it is a Good Thing (tm). I have said so before, and I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
