tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7500362020460381974..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: What’s the point of demarcation projects?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59393645285535461722013-05-09T02:45:36.616-04:002013-05-09T02:45:36.616-04:00In ancient China I heard that they would try to di...In ancient China I heard that they would try to diagnose internal problems by looking at the skin on your face. Easiest tests to conduct I guess haha.<br /><a href="http://www.acupuncturestanbaker.com" rel="nofollow"> acupuncture springfield ma </a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01164994937789965958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67174273850228977382013-05-08T05:23:56.289-04:002013-05-08T05:23:56.289-04:00Unfortunately, you can only falsify a god hypothes...Unfortunately, you can only falsify a god hypothesis one person at a time, as there might be infinite variations of fantasies. There wouldn't be one test for all, as we can never say we know 'everything about everything' (especially the proposed supernatural world)- so we are scientifically confined to falsification of each specific claim to the extent it impacts the measurable world - an endless task.<br /><br />Nevertheless, we have rational enquiry more generally, including philosophy, to debate the parameters of these issues rather then falsifying their specifics, which cannot be falsified anyway if they exist only supernaturally. Then we can make our own rational judgments about whether to bother cross-examining every believer to find and resolve any falsifiability or logical contradiction to their 'hypothesis'. I wouldn't bother cross-examining more than one or two, and then I'd embark on a life of total ignorance about the supernatural. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28338745217181059622013-05-08T05:10:00.546-04:002013-05-08T05:10:00.546-04:00You need to revert to philosophy more generally to...You need to revert to philosophy more generally to inquire into string theory and the like. At the end of the day, its about rational satisfaction with, or conditions applied to, theories that inevitably encompass 'some' measurements. There might be all sorts of rational objections to absent observations of crucial points for falsification, but if it generally fits within a framework of known facts it can be rationally, conditionally, assessed even without crucial points for falsifiability. I'm not much into demarcation, except to say science tends to measurement (falsification of empirical facts) and philosophy tends to rational satisfaction (important when facts are very incomplete).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62899674344557456482013-05-06T00:33:05.186-04:002013-05-06T00:33:05.186-04:00Tom, had you picked someone who knew what they wer...Tom, had you picked someone who knew what they were talking about like a philosopher of science or religion, it might have meant something. Higgs is no better than Dawkins whose opinion you despise. If you actually read the NAS, AAAS or NCSE material you would find it is all written by Christian scientists and theologians - neither group's opinions and they are just opinions make a rat's ass bit of difference. The NAS prates on about religion as a "way of knowing" different but equal to science - too bad they cannot come up with a single thing religion knows or how it produces knowledge. One shouldn't accept philosophical advice or theological advice for that matter from a science organization - totally unqualified. <br />michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80833125248010004492013-05-05T20:54:28.998-04:002013-05-05T20:54:28.998-04:00Vasco Gama,
Now I am completely confused. Surely ...Vasco Gama,<br /><br />Now I am completely confused. Surely testable propositions form the basis of any rational inquiry while it is non-testable ideas that are irrational?Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6740446104487174112013-05-05T18:27:54.320-04:002013-05-05T18:27:54.320-04:00No, it is certainly clear that not all scientists ...No, it is certainly clear that not all scientists march in lockstep - I have colleagues who trust homeopathy and colleagues who believe in various gods. However, that scientists happen to hold those beliefs still does not mean that they are not unscientific.<br /><br />The problem with arguing from the accommodationist position of the NAS is that it is an organization trying to promote science in a world in which saying that belief in homeopathy is unfounded is just about permissible but saying that belief in god is unfounded will invite extremely hostile reactions from taxpayers and politicians. Even if the vast majority of its members agreed with me they would be suicidal to say so openly.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41831949218489833372013-05-05T16:20:06.292-04:002013-05-05T16:20:06.292-04:00Alex,
You are right this discussion leads to nowh...Alex,<br /><br />You are right this discussion leads to nowhere (as I stated in my first comment I just wanted to show you that a testable god is irrational).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88485010755980931132013-05-05T16:15:55.742-04:002013-05-05T16:15:55.742-04:00Alex,
Respectfully, I was making a point in repl...Alex, <br /><br />Respectfully, I was making a point in reply to your seeming assumption that science is a monolithic whole with only one viewpoint on the god hypothesis: rejecting it. <br /><br />As such, my quoting Peter Higgs is not an argument from authority or merely quoting a random individual -- it is a datum from an esteemed scientist that is in contradiction to an unwarranted assumption of unanimity. The icing on the cake was Higgs’ denouncement of Dawkins’ attitude as being "fundamentalist". <br /><br />In addition, let me say that Higgs is not an isolated case; there are many other highly respected scientists who refuse to reject the god hypothesis. The National Academy of Science finds that science and god are not incompatible (as an official position). Moreover, about 7% of the NAS members actually believe in a personal god. <br /><br />If I have misunderstood, and your only argument is that rejection of the god hypothesis should not be absolutely forbidden, then I would agree with you.<br /><br />But you seem to me to go farther – assuming that all scientists reject the god hypothesis, and that any other viewpoint is unscientific.Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30161991365985925712013-05-05T14:11:12.712-04:002013-05-05T14:11:12.712-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51935245782963241082013-05-05T05:30:01.114-04:002013-05-05T05:30:01.114-04:00Are homeopathy and parapsychology pseudo-sciences?...Are homeopathy and parapsychology pseudo-sciences? A scientific theory is any formulation about observed or observable phenomena that includes empirically falsifiable claims, meaning that a pseudo-scientific theory is one that cannot be falsified empirically. <br /><br />Unlike homeopaths, string theorists are scientists of the highest order, investigating some of the deepest mysteries of nature. It may, however, turn out that it is impossible to observe structures as tiny as the posited strings or the extra dimensions of space, in which case string theory would have to be called pseudo-scientific even if the physicists involved are anything but pseudo-scientists. <br /><br />In contrast, homeopathy is based on a bona fide scientific theory since it claims, falsifiably, that certain substances produce certain effects. If the claims are falsified, then the theory is not pseudo-scientific, only false. <br /><br />Science is, or should be, the most democratic of endeavors. It is scientists themselves who must ensure the democracy by rejecting only those theories that are unfalsifiable. To test the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines or the claims of para-psychologists, homeopaths and para-psychologists need only to carry out replicable experiments, and that is all fellow scientists and, may I add, philosophers should demand. <br /><br />Zalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014580581375983716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74618892667219111662013-05-05T05:02:06.562-04:002013-05-05T05:02:06.562-04:00Gadfly, Vasco Gama,
It is utterly fascinating how...Gadfly, Vasco Gama,<br /><br />It is utterly fascinating how this discussion, whether here or elsewhere, constantly proceeds in circles and by talking past each other.<br /><br />I argue that it is inconsistent and special pleading to allow science to tentatively reject all incoherent, indefinable, implausible and unevidenced claims except one. You basically argue that science is not deductive logic. Well, yes. So what?<br /><br />There is not actually a contradiction between our claims, indeed they do not actually appear to have anything to do with each other.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-145100691998024642013-05-04T20:05:37.852-04:002013-05-04T20:05:37.852-04:00Tom D.,
As in the case of Patrick, quoting the po...Tom D.,<br /><br />As in the case of Patrick, quoting the position of an individual who may or may not be wrong on the issue is not really an argument; providing an argument would be an argument. At least in those quotes, Higgs merely makes assertions.<br /><br />Please note that my position as relevant to this post is merely that it is inconsistent, and special pleading, to allow scientists to reject any idea except gods based on absence of evidence. It is not that religion and science are incompatible.<br /><br />Still, you are right, I believe that too. Higgs notwithstanding, I fail to see how the demand for evidence is methodologically is anything but the diametrical opposite of faith, and how the belief in the universe having been created and being run by a benevolent god is compatible with even just the information one can gain from reading today's newspaper, much less the body of knowledge represented by contemporary astrophysics and biology.<br /><br />Maybe we don't just disagree on the meaning of "science" and "religion" but also on the meaning of "incompatible".Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49477501958788132532013-05-04T16:38:59.003-04:002013-05-04T16:38:59.003-04:00Higgs stated that quite nicely.
Alex, I do adm...Higgs stated that quite nicely. <br /><br /><br />Alex, I do admire the effort you put into defending your position. Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397471313091314320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84199058884449128322013-05-04T15:59:13.242-04:002013-05-04T15:59:13.242-04:00My apology, Paul, yes; somehow, I thought that was...My apology, Paul, yes; somehow, I thought that was under "your blogs," not ones you follow. That said, I stand by my observation about your original comment here; at the least, it's reasonably open to interpretation as proffering the "god of the gaps," updated.<br /><br />I'll also, while correctly re-attributing the observation to Cain's writing, stand by what I said about it, including that, if he can't, or rather, "won't" summarize a thesis of what drives his writing in a few grafs, I'll pass.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24986862330299861662013-05-04T15:00:37.957-04:002013-05-04T15:00:37.957-04:00I think I should defend Harris regarding the Musli...I think I should defend Harris regarding the Muslim issue. I think his views are reasonable and consistent. Islam, of all religions, is the most aggressive and oppressive. Consequently, anybody who rejects and fights religion because of its social and political dangers, must fight Islam much more than any other religion. I think all religions are false and (somehow) evil, but Islam is demonstrably the worst.<br /><br />Also Christianity has allowed (and sometimes helped) progressive movements like the Renaissance and Humanism. There has not been anything like the Renaissance in the Muslim world, and consequently, no Humanism, Enlightenment, etc. Islam is pretty much stuck permanently in the Dark Ages. So, I like to be called an Infidel, rather than an Atheist, to demonstrate my particular denial of and opposition to Islam. Of course, I am an Infidel with respect to Christianity too, but I am a lot less worried about it, in practice.<br />Filippo Nerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01910861498359320434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58845246505840019562013-05-04T13:44:32.135-04:002013-05-04T13:44:32.135-04:00Alex, You wrote
>But when a scientist like Da...Alex, You wrote <br /><br />>But when a scientist like Dawkins points out that belief in a creator god is just as implausible when seen in the light of what we know about the universe, they are suddenly guilty of scientism. Science is allowed to tentatively reject all wildly implausible, unfounded and specious ideas...<<br /><br />I can’t help but point out that Peter Higgs, the theoretical physicist famous for the Higgs boson criticizes the “fundamentalist” approach taken by Dawkins, and finds the approach taken by Dawkins to be “embarrassing”. <br /><br />In an interview with El Mundo, Higgs argued that although he was not a believer, he thought science and religion were not incompatible. "The growth of our understanding of the world through science weakens some of the motivation which makes people believers. But that's not the same thing as saying they're incompatible. It's just that I think some of the traditional reasons for belief, going back thousands of years, are rather undermined.”<br /><br />"But that doesn't end the whole thing. Anybody who is a convinced but not a dogmatic believer can continue to hold his belief. It means I think you have to be rather more careful about the whole debate between science and religion than some people have been in the past."<br /><br />So, in short, such an esteemed figure as Peter Higgs does NOT think that the god hypothesis is “wildly implausible, unfounded and specious”. <br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51046356742583737992013-05-04T12:28:17.945-04:002013-05-04T12:28:17.945-04:00Patrick
If God and religion is All about unity,
...Patrick<br /><br />If God and religion is All about unity, <br />Then how and why does it divide itself?<br />God is that and we are this, good and bad, heaven and hell, mortals and infidels?<br />Measured divisions, religion is as guilty as science in its uncertain divisiveness and much more scientific than most think.<br />What is the line between science and religion, I think it is God, only another name for everything, or truth, what science and religion are still searching for.<br />Amen,<br /><br />== MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64740609674237433152013-05-04T11:53:37.898-04:002013-05-04T11:53:37.898-04:00If science is limited and the Universe or Nature i...If science is limited and the Universe or Nature is infinite, how can you scientifically define everything or anything?<br /><br />== MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30248230019043416862013-05-04T11:32:20.930-04:002013-05-04T11:32:20.930-04:00Filippo,
Surely 1+1 and 2 are not the same and th...Filippo,<br /><br />Surely 1+1 and 2 are not the same and the only absolute or certainty in an equation is =. And as for mathematics defining Nature, if you are looking for truth, equal is the single absolute.<br />When All is equal All is truly One.<br />God, the Universe, Nature, Everything.<br /><br />== MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51886285687172363732013-05-04T11:15:53.961-04:002013-05-04T11:15:53.961-04:00Tear down the walls of uncertainty that divide us ...Tear down the walls of uncertainty that divide us and you'll find the truth that unites us. == MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49605396861615739022013-05-04T10:53:31.727-04:002013-05-04T10:53:31.727-04:00been pretty busy lately Gadfly. Like it or not, si...been pretty busy lately Gadfly. Like it or not, since the early 1900s we have entered some kind of new age, and need to make sense of itDaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41150349903558253042013-05-04T06:48:19.804-04:002013-05-04T06:48:19.804-04:00Alex,
I don't see how the principle of parsim...Alex,<br /><br />I don't see how the principle of parsimony could lead to the rejection of a non-testable god.<br /><br />It appears to me that the principle of parsimony is quite useless in this matter (it just confirms previous thoughts and is quite poor as an argument). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41197557645692732752013-05-04T03:19:30.583-04:002013-05-04T03:19:30.583-04:00Overlapping this post with earlier ones, I reckon ...Overlapping this post with earlier ones, I reckon science is factual confirmation of whatever the rational mind can conceive. And the rational mind conceives all of philosophy, which, like science, covers just about every aspect of existence. The main thing is for science not to get too carried away with theory unless it wants to return to a broader (classical) definition of a "body of reliable knowledge"- which I would prefer. <br /><br />Then we can bring in the possibility of broad stroke metaphysics for some of what is conceived by physicists today. And rigorous methodology that examines measurers and their theories as much as doing measurments, to understand the reliability of "knowledge" in a much broader context than the confirmation of this or that measurment of a scientific fact.<br /><br />As for pseudo-science - its a matter of taste I suppose. One man's meat is another man's puke, and we all have to make judgments about what is logically conceivable within a body of reliable scientific facts. We can make more and better measurements of facts, and conceive more and better theories, which is the main point - progress. I wouldn't get too high & mighty or snobby about it (not suggesting the post tends that way as far as I can tell)<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16569273653865841812013-05-04T01:24:51.571-04:002013-05-04T01:24:51.571-04:00Gadfly,
I think you have me confused with Benjami...Gadfly,<br /><br />I think you have me confused with Benjamin Cain. I don't write the "Rants Within the Undead God" blog, he does. (He's a philosophy Phd, I'm pretty sure, and personally I think a lot of his writing is excellent; very original topics, and usually quite rigorous.) On MY blog (pmpaolini.blogspot.com) you'll find only short stories. Fiction is what I consider to be my main writing. Cheers.Paul Paolinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04580285404702244031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63967885498941464612013-05-04T01:23:50.074-04:002013-05-04T01:23:50.074-04:00If the laws of physics are regulatory, what do you...If the laws of physics are regulatory, what do you suppose they regulate except systems?Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.com