| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > Did I take that out of context?
>
> No, my mistake -- fair enough. James did state something very like your own
> statement. I read too quickly I guess...sorry. Mea culpa.
>
> > disprove the existence of little green faeiries but in the scientific domain
> > it can hypothesize the non-existence of said beasties, and most people would
> > accept that hypothesis. Try that with God.
>
> I suppose it could, but it would not (proving a negative, etc.). That's not
> the purpose of scientific methods. Science does not attempt to make any
> assumptions beyond observable phenomena. No scientist would hypothesize the
> non-existence of green fairies or any beasties because it is completely
> unnecessary to do so. The same thing is true of god. Lacking all evidence
> or data that god, green fairies, or beasties exist -- there will not be any
> theories about any of those things coming from the scientific community.
> Science doesn't say that those things couldn't exist, there is just zero
> proof that they do. End of story. It's really not that complicated.
>
> No scientific theory has the intent of disproving faith-based ideas because
> there is NO DATA for or against such ideas. I guess in this sense (and I
> hope I am not mistating it) science is kind of maintaining an agnostic*
> stance rather than an atheistic one. Science is not hostile to the idea of
> god -- it doesn't care about that idea in the first place because there is
> no data one way or the other!
>
> No observable data = no scientific theory.
>
> > So again, we come back to the idea that 'well, we don't know all of it
> > today, we don't know enuf yet, but we'll get there--we will eventually know
> > *everything* due to our scientific pursuits'
>
> No, actually my model suggests that there is always something new to study.
> Theory never really becomes "fact" -- just a best guess, utilitarian thing.
> If it serves us, the theory stands. If not, we do away with it. Science
> has no emotional investment in any theory.
>
> > Sounds like a faith statement to me--"well, we don't know our god yet, but
> > he's slowly revealing himself and his creation to us--we just have to work
> > harder, and have a better understanding, and over the span of time,
> > eventually we'll know all that there is to know for our god knows all
> > (eventually)."
>
> A straw man argument erected by a man of faith -- or so I assume...
Just because you say it's a straw man, don't make it so.
Quoteth Hop-Frog
> Science does not attempt to make any
> assumptions beyond observable phenomena.
Further quoteth
> No, actually my model suggests that there is always something new to study
Not a straw man arguement--you state in the paragraph above that there will
*always* be something new to study. How can you make that assertion? I
cannot assert that there is a *limit* to what we can study, other than by
saying the theory of limits seems to suggest that this is so, but I don't
*know* that there is a limit, just as you cannot *know* there will *always*
be something to study.
If it's always, then it's 'know all'
If it's not always, then it's finite, and stuff can exist outside.
Again, I go with the latter
>
> I have said no such thing. Science and scientific methods are useful.
> Faith-based beliefs are not useful in anything like the same way that
> scientific thought is useful. I buy big into science -- which serves me;
> but very little into faith beliefs which do not serve me nearly as well.
On this I concur, scientific methods are great for that which is in the
domain of science. I 'buy big' into science as well. That does not stop me
from 'buying' into faith as well. Who's the better? The one with faith or
the one without? I can't say. It's not up to me--is an individual choice.
>
> > If that is not what you meant by 'these do not mean that there are things
> > outside the scope of scientific process to understand them -- even if our
> > methods of analysis and understanding the phenomena is limited at this
> > time' then please clarify.
>
> I would say that our reality model is growing. Twenty years ago we had no
> idea that we could map the human genome -- today it is very much a reality.
> It has been done. We have to address all the new data presented by such an
> occurance. For example, we thought the data comprising DNA would be larger
> in size for human beings than other species, it turns out to be smaller than
> our best predictions. Such discoveries must be addressed. What is so hard to
> understand about this?
>
> Just because you or I do not have the scientific explanation for a phenomena
> doesn't mean that such an explanation doesn't exist, BTW -- I really do not
> claim to know everything.
And again, I concur--science is the continual process thu which we can
understand our physical universe--and I want, encourage, and hope that
scientific exploration continues! I'm not one of those religious zealots
who adamantly holds to the belief that God takes care of that which science
hasn't discovered (yet). That's a god of the gap, and as the gap of
knowledge gets smaller and smaller, that god becomes less and less relevant.
>
> > And I would *never* presume to find something that tries to compete with the
> > logical, reasonable, and adaptable human endeavour known as the pursuit of
> > scientific discovery. I say leave the scientifically understandable ideas
> > to science. I haven't yet, nor do I feel a particular urge to do go 'find
> > something else'. I think I've mentioned this at least once--I appreciate
> > science. Are we reading each other clearly here?
>
> I guess not. You actually seem to have a big problem with some basic ideas
> behind scientific methodology. I think those of us on the "science side" of
> the debate are just trying to clear up what appear to be misconceptions
> about the goals and methods of science. We also do not want to be
> misunderstood.
No I do not have a problem with some basic ideas of scientific methodology.
I think, as shown here in these posts, that, tho I may not have an
understanding of Quantum mechanics, that I say the pursuit of scientific
exploration is great for the stuff that falls under the purview of science.
It's crystal clear, to me anyway. I just tag on the end that there *may* be
stuff outside the domain of science--not just stuff that hasn't been
discovered or understood by science yet, but stuff that *may* never be
understood by science, because it's outside the domain of science.
>
> > Those that elevate science *above* *my* God, however, by saying that 'nothing
> > *can* exist outside the domain of science' are basically telling me I'm
> > dellusional in my belief, that I'm wacko, that, 'hey, there's that crazy
> > guy--y'know, he believes in some god or other.' It is, bottom line, making
> > me less than you--and that certainly isn't so.
>
> You can believe whatever you want. Everyone wants this exact same freedom.
> Yes, you can conceive of things that are not provable nor disprovable by
> scientific means -- but that doesn't mean that these conceptions become part
> of the reality model accepted by scienctists.
Not asking them to. Never have, never did.
> I am sorry, but they remain
> your unique ideas, wacko or otherwise...and the same is true even if we
> expand those holding these unique ideas from a single individual to a whole
> group. Even when hundreds of people think a rust stain on a wall is a sign
> of the Black Madonna, it's still just a rust stain to science.
And is still a rust stain to me. There's a straw man arguement there if you
want to know where one is.
Further, if I said, "And I'm sorry that you cannot *conceive* the notion
that something exists outside of science", I am, in fact, saying, "Well,
you're just too dumb to get it." reducing you and elevating me. I'm not
calling you dumb, not only 'cause we're on the same page on soooo many
things, and, as such, I'd be calling myself dumb as well, but mostly, I
don't go around calling people dumb--it's demeaning--I'm not above you, and
you're not above me. I mean, some fanatical zealots are idiots, but that's
a conversation for another time.
I would never say I'm sorry for you. I uphold your ideas and support
scientific endeavours. I'm not even asking you to support my faith, firstly
because you don't believe in it so what's the point, but secondly, and
mostly, it's *my* faith, not yours.
>
> No one is putting you down for your faith-based ideas. We are putting down
> the idea that such ideas are useful to a republican society in the same way
> that scientific knowledge is useful. If you personally have utility for
> faith-based ideas, then that's great -- just don't expect ME or society at
> large to care about your particular beliefs. Even if we reversed this, and
> everyone in society but myself believed in the Black Madonna -- I still have
> the right to believe otherwise and science would back me up. But I don't
> want to confuse a discussion about utility with issues concerning rights, so
> I'll stop here.
And you just said something that we completely agree on.
> > Not just because of my sense of the divine 'we're, each and every one of us,
> > created in His image', and not just 'cause some piece of paper enshrined in a
> > hall somewhere states that 'all men are created equal,' but by the logical
> > constructs that postulate (and the historically accurate idea), the moment
> > you dehumanize *any* member of your society, you can find a reason to
> > dehumanize *all* members of your society. You don't want me to belittle your
> > system, so don't belittle mine.
>
> Your sense of the divine, nor mine, has anything to do with science or
> scientific methodology -- not absent ANY compelling data for it to be otherwise.
>
> All men are not created equal -- they are thought to have the same rights
> under the law.
>
> Dehumanizing people is not the aim of science --whatever you may mean by
> dehumanize. The separation of church and state, hopefully and generally,
> keeps religion out of the focus of public discourse. Faith-based beliefs
> are highly personal, and I say let's keep them that way.
I, again, never said that science dehumanizes anyone. It's the elevation of
sceince to the realm of 'know all' which dehumanizes people who believe in
something else.
>
> None of this has to do with science or scientific processes.
>
> > Do you understand that science *may* not encompass *everything* there is to
> > the human existence? That it *may* never be able to understand for there
> > *may* be things outside the domain of scientific endeavour? I'm open to
> > that possibility.
>
> No, I reject that notion -- further I disagree with your construction of the
> critical issues.
Then come up with a better one.
>
> I know that science doesn't currently have answers for everything we observe
> -- hence the use of "theories." Nothing observable is beyond being studied
> by scientific means.
Well, if that's it, then we agree, for my God has the potential to still
exist in that construct, no matter how much we study the 'observable'. So,
agreed.
> Please show me something in human experience that is beyond observation and
> study. A tautology will not do, nor will statements that "beg the question."
I think that if you read that sentence, you would see a logical
contradiction--"show" me something that is "beyond observation".
(and I always hate 'beg the quesiton'--ick! "Well", says Joe Schmo, "This
begs the question of that, and that begs the question of those over
there...") Whatever, in the physical universe the ball hits the tree, the
Huff and Puff can be related without a HuffPuffPuffHuffPuffPuffHuff bridge
between the two, and other stuff which I just find vexing.)
>
> -- Hop-Frog
>
> *ag·nos·tic (ag nosÆtik), n.
> 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and
> the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human
> knowledge is limited to experience.
> 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in
> some area of study.
faith Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1-Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person,
idea, or thing.
2-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See
Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3-Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4-often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief
in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5-The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6-A set of principles or beliefs.
I kinda fall into the points 2 and 4, tho 1 is pretty good as well, for I do
have faith in those around me, that my friends are going to do me right.
Again, no one else has to believe what I believe. But I'm not any stupider,
or less right for that belief than you are without that belief.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) You are exactly correct. What makes it a straw argument is the fact that you made a simplistic caricature of Richard's argument and then addressed it as though it was an accurate summation of his position. That is the very definition of a (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) No, my mistake -- fair enough. James did state something very like your own statement. I read too quickly I guess...sorry. Mea culpa. (...) I suppose it could, but it would not (proving a negative, etc.). That's not the purpose of scientific (...) (22 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
