Skeptic (but still a Christian) fan. [Archive] - Page 3

fls

21st March 2007, 07:36 AM

To make something clearer here: I pointed out that clinical medicine is not ONLY based on materialism, but also on other quite diametrical philosophies.
To name only two examples (I can think of a great many more, most especially once we get into psychology / psychiatry):

placebo effect
bedside-manner effect

Neither effect is easily amenable to the usual sort of simplistic materialism that is mean often when people mention materialism.

Just so I don't have to justify strawmen, can I simply refer to what science means by materialism?

So what you are saying is that anything that is based on the mind falls under "not material"? How about instead of dragging psychology/psychiatry into it you stick with what you are really saying, then - that thoughts and feelings are not material. You won't even have to start a new thread since there is a mind/body thread already going on.

However, from the perspective of this discussion (and until someone offers proof of mind/body duality), these are still examples of materialism wrt science as thoughts and feelings are the products of material processes within the brain.

OK, additionally:
DSM-IV is based on intersubjective criteria, involving many hidden premises that are pure ethics and thus subjective, and involving intersubjective votes by the responsible body (for example, I refer you to the controversy raging for decades as to whether Multiple Personality Syndrome, known by many different names owing to that controversy, actually exists or if it's only hysterical dramatising).

That again is not materialism -- intersubjective criteria, decided by vote? Bit bloody hard to make that a straight materialism.

It's meant to describe a material process - a process that takes place within the brain and produces a particular pattern of outputs. I notice that nobody complains that hypertension is a disease determined by concensus.

Since DSM-IV is used for major classification and diagnosis, as well as treatment prescription, BANG! go the entire fields of psychiatry and psychology --- using many more philosophies than just materialism.

There are also more subtle examples:
the field of epidemology, in relation to stress-related causation of illnesses, again goes into non-materialist fields when considering the factors additional to stress necessary for causing later problems.

"Stress" is a specific biochemical response. Your vague reference to additional factors also seems to be referring to specific physiologic processes. These are all material processes.

Linda

Gurdur

21st March 2007, 07:55 AM

Just so I don't have to justify strawmen, can I simply refer to what science means by materialism?
What do you actually mean by this? Do feel free to cite here what you think "science" means by materialism; but the definition rather differs according to what field you're in.
So what you are saying is that anything that is based on the mind falls under "not material"?

Anything to do, for example, with purely mental constructs (you left out my example of theoretical mathematics)
anything to do with intent
anything to do with self-alterable self-perception

These are only a few of the elements involved; there are more.
How about nstead of dragging psychology/psychiatry into it
These are science too. How about you reply directly to my points?
you stick with what you are really saying, then - that thoughts and feelings are not material.
Not true. And not what I am saying. Instead of strawmanning me, how about replying to what I actually do say?
I won't get side-tracked on that; the nature of thoughts and feelings is quite a complex subject. But don't try claiming what I am saying, instead reply to what I actually say.
However, from the perspective of this discussion (and until someone offers proof of mind/body duality), these are still examples of materialism wrt science as thoughts and feelings are the products of material processes within the brain.
Intent, purely mental constructs, and self-alterable self-perception are not amenable to description by what is commonly known as materialist philosophy.
That is the point.
I notice that nobody complains that hypertension is a disease determined by concensus.
Funny. :)
Can you now reply to the point?

"Stress" is a specific biochemical response. Your vague reference to additional factors also seems to be referring to specific physiologic processes. These are all material processes.
I was referring to beliefs held by subjects altering responses to the same stress stimulus. It is a major factor in stress-related disease epidemology.

Ivor the Engineer

21st March 2007, 08:15 AM

<snip>
I was referring to beliefs held by subjects altering responses to the same stress stimulus. It is a major factor in stress-related disease epidemology.

Different beliefs <=> Different neuron connections and/or processing.

Gurdur

21st March 2007, 08:24 AM

Different beliefs <=> Different neuron connections and/or processing.
Putatively.
In fact, you betray a lack of understanding of neurology there; neuronal connections don't need to be different to behave differently; neuroreceptor agonists and antagonists play a huge role. Plus there is also random neural firing. :)

But bugger all that, Ivor, you're simply evading the point. The effects of high-order cognition are not describable under what is commonly known as materialist philospohies, and others are used instead.

Here is the point yet again.

I was asked what parts of science do not rely solely on materialism.
.
Materialism is a philosophy, or more accurately, a group of philosophies.
.
I pointed out various examples of scientific disciplines that do not by far solely depend on materialism.
.
These examples included among others:

theoretical mathematics
cognitive psychology
psychiatry
parts of medical epidemology
parts of clinical medicine in practice
There are many more examples like these.
.
All these are scientific disciplines. All these utilise other philosophies as well as materialism (in fact theoretical mathematics could be argued not to rely on materialism almost at all).

The question has been answered. Deal with it.

Ivor the Engineer

21st March 2007, 08:35 AM

Putatively.
In fact, you betray a lack of understanding of neurology there; neuronal connections don't need to be different to behave differently; neuroreceptor agonists and antagonists play a huge role. Plus there is also random neural firing. :)

But bugger all that, Ivor, you're simply evading the point. The effects of high-order cognition are not describable under what is commonly known as materialist philospohies, and others are used instead.

Here is the point yet again.

I was asked what parts of science do not rely solely on materialism.
.
Materialism is a philosophy, or more accurately, a group of philosophies.
.
I pointed out various examples of scientific disciplines that do not by far solely depend on materialism.
.
These examples included among others:

theoretical mathematics
cognitive psychology
psychiatry
parts of medical epidemology
parts of clinical medicine in practice
There are many more examples like these.
.
All these are scientific disciplines. All these utilise other philosophies as well as materialism (in fact theoretical mathematics could be argued not to rely on materialism almost at all).

The question has been answered. Deal with it.

Yes, Gurdur, whatever.

Different beliefs <=> Different neuron connections and/or processing.

Does that help?

Gurdur

21st March 2007, 08:54 AM

.... [silliness snipped] ...
Okeydokey Ivor, I see you are still totally uninterested in dealing with the actual point. Too bad, my mistake in bothering to look what you had posted this time; we all live and learn, and the Ignore List is a wonderful feature.
:)
Next time, try dealing with the actual point squarely, rather than using pretty colours and big fonts to disguise the fact that you are in fact not responding to the actual message. Cheerio, off you go then!

fls

21st March 2007, 09:41 AM

What do you actually mean by this? Do feel free to cite here what you think "science" means by materialism; but the definition rather differs according to what field you're in.

The idea that all things are composed of matter (taking into consideration the symmetry of energy and matter, this also includes forces) and can be understood in terms of material interactions.

The more philosophical component of this discussion is whether thoughts and feelings can be considered immaterial considering that they do not exist independent of material processes. Regardless, it cannot be demonstrated that they alter material processes.

Anything to do, for example, with purely mental constructs (you left out my example of theoretical mathematics)
anything to do with intent
anything to do with self-alterable self-perception

These are only a few of the elements involved; there are more.

These are science too. How about you reply directly to my points?

I was curious about the part of the list I quoted....clincial medicine (why the rest were left out).

It's a different discussion as to whether or not ideas are material, or whether or not mathematics is empirical at its heart (although you may have some specific meaning in mind when you say "theoretical mathematics" that makes that irrelevant).

But the formation of intent comes from the brain which consists of material processes. Ditto for your other elements and for psychology/psychiatry (both of which involve studying the products of the brain through the range of normal and abnormal functioning). So I would consider all that as falling within the idea of materialism.

Not true. And not what I am saying. Instead of strawmanning me, how about replying to what I actually do say?
I won't get side-tracked on that; the nature of thoughts and feelings is quite a complex subject. But don't try claiming what I am saying, instead reply to what I actually say.

I'm trying. I thought I was restating what you were saying.

Intent, purely mental constructs, and self-alterable self-perception are not amenable to description by what is commonly known as materialist philosophy.
That is the point.

My response was that intent, mental constructs and self-alterable self-perception are products of material processes and are described in that manner. Can you clarify how that is unsatisfactory?

Funny. :)
Can you now reply to the point?

My point with that was simply that there are other diseases that rely solely upon intersubjective criteria, but it only seems to be a bone of contention when it involves psychiatric diagnoses. This can be ignored as merely a side issue.

I was referring to beliefs held by subjects altering responses to the same stress stimulus. It is a major factor in stress-related disease epidemology.

The belief is the result of a material process. That this material process influences other material processes, such as the stress response, still falls under materialism.

Linda

fls

21st March 2007, 09:54 AM

Putatively.
In fact, you betray a lack of understanding of neurology there; neuronal connections don't need to be different to behave differently; neuroreceptor agonists and antagonists play a huge role. Plus there is also random neural firing. :)

But bugger all that, Ivor, you're simply evading the point. The effects of high-order cognition are not describable under what is commonly known as materialist philospohies, and others are used instead.

Here is the point yet again.

I was asked what parts of science do not rely solely on materialism.
.
Materialism is a philosophy, or more accurately, a group of philosophies.
.
I pointed out various examples of scientific disciplines that do not by far solely depend on materialism.
.
These examples included among others:

theoretical mathematics
cognitive psychology
psychiatry
parts of medical epidemology
parts of clinical medicine in practice
There are many more examples like these.
.
All these are scientific disciplines. All these utilise other philosophies as well as materialism (in fact theoretical mathematics could be argued not to rely on materialism almost at all).

The question has been answered. Deal with it.

I get a different impression from this post than I did from your post to me.

It looks more like you are moving between ideas of reductionism and holism (I don't think that's the right word, but I'm having a mental block at the moment :))? These processes are poorly described/understood by focussing on their elementary composition and a purely materialist description cannot contribute to understanding?

I can agree with that.

Linda

Beth

21st March 2007, 10:11 AM

This is the crux of the matter.

Indeed!

It is subjective only if you reduce these issues to the point of meaninglessness - something I (and Skeptigirl among others) have been arguing against. Here I disagree. You don't have to reduce these issues to the point of meaninglessness in order to claim they are subjective.
I completely agree that it is possible to make "evidence" and "proof" meaningless by bringing everything down to the level of the lowest-common-denominator. My contention has been that other than what appears to be mental masturbation for some, and justification for warm-fuzzies for others, the exercise is pointless.
Again, I disagree. I find these discussions interesting in terms of figuring out at what point people decide when they are going to stop looking for more turtles underneath. If you feel as you indicate here, why are you posting in this thread?

I much rather prefer to use words like "objective", "subjective", "evidence" and "proof" in ways that allow for a meaningful distinction between different kinds of information. I realize that I lose the opportunity to be clever by pointing out that it's turtles all the way down, but at some point can't we all concede that we've taken Philosophy 101 and move on?

Then why not make a substantive respond to my post from yesterday? Your flip comment didn't seem to me to do anything other than provide you with the warm-fuzzy of feeling superior by putting me down.

Beth

21st March 2007, 11:08 AM

Beth said, "Credible personal testimony is evidence. It is not proof. People can be mistaken. "

That is true. It is evidence. Thank you. Nice to agree on something. :)
But it isn't evidence of their conclusion. Well, it certainly isn't proof of their conclusion. However, it may be considered evidence supporting their hypothesis.

And blurring the thing they are telling you with the thing they believe it meant can be a problem. I agree it's a problem, but I see it as you blurring evidence with proof, not that I have blurred evidence with conclusions.

You are confusing the definition of evidence with the discussion of evidence of what?

Beth and I agree the dream is evidence. And she even agreed conclusions were not evidence. The point I haven't quite gotten through is merely where the evidence stops and the conclusion starts. Hmmm. Whereas I see it as I haven't gotten through to you regarding the difference between where having a hypothesis stops and making a conclusion starts. I keep talking about evidence supporting a hypothesis which you seem to interpret as saying that the evidence proves the conclusion. In fairness, I don't think I was careful with my phrasing in my first posts in this thread. I have since tried to clarify that but without apparent success.

What a person experiences is evidence, the thing in question is, evidence of what? The fact that a lot of people believe certain evidence or a certain observation is evidence of something which it is not evidence of doesn't make me want to defer to their false conclusions. Rather, it is all the more reason to teach critical thinking skills and try to show people where the fallacy occurred as they reached their false conclusion. I'm not saying you should defer to their conclusion. But you've been claiming they don't have any evidence. I think they do, it's just insufficient to come to the conclusion they've reached.

And in doing so, missed my point altogether. I understand your point. I have understood it from the beginning. You don't need to keep trying to get it across to me. Then why do consistently misinterpret what I am saying about it? When I say evidence supports a hypothesis, you consistently misinterpret that as saying that the evidences proves the conclusion.

Until you establish it, the hat is not evidence of having an effect on the game. It might be evidence the person believes a superstition, it might be evidence he likes his hat backwards. It isn't evidence hats effect games until you establish the relationship.
The hat position in relation to the game outcome is certainly evidence of the relationship. Further, the first game wherein the person wears his hat backwards and observes the outcome is evidence. It does not become evidence later, after he's collected the data on 100 games regarding hat position and outcome. It was evidence from the beginnning before the relationship was established. I agree that it isn't proof that the hat position affects the game outcome unless and until a mechanism for how hat position might affect game outcome is established. But it is evidence in support of that hypothesis.

Another example: Would you say that the data collected correlating smoking and lung cancer not evidence for a causal relationship until the mechanism of how smoking might cause lung cancer was established? As I interpret what you are saying, you would not consider it evidence at the time of the analysis. You claim that it only became evidence after the causal relationship was established.

Sorry, but that's all I have time to respond to now.

Tumblehome

21st March 2007, 11:31 AM

Do you not understand the scientific method? And there aren't "a few supernatural claims" that are excluded, the supernatural is excluded, but some forms of claims that supposedly stem a supernatural source can be investigated. Faith healing vs. prayer efficacy is an example I cited earlier in this thread IIRC. We can study supposed claims of the ability to cause miraculous cures through incantation, laying on hands, etc. and debunk them. Either someone can cure people or they cannot. We can't really put in an error bar or quantify a falsification scenario for a prayer efficacy study though.

Actually, I just realized that faith healer claims do present a bit of a problem for falsification because we can't be sure if it's because the person is making bogus claims, because the deity chose not to intervene on their behalf or if they could heal if they weren't apostate or heretical or whatever.

If the supernatural is undetectible, why would anyone think it exists? "It can't be seen or detected in any way, but yep, it's there."

We simply have no way of knowing the supposed mind of the deity and putting that into the scientific study of supernatural claims.
What makes you think there is a deity, other than wishful thinking?

fls

21st March 2007, 11:52 AM

Indeed!
Here I disagree. You don't have to reduce these issues to the point of meaninglessness in order to claim they are subjective.

You do if you want to claim they can only be subjective - especially with the additional caveat of equivalently subjective.

Again, I disagree. I find these discussions interesting in terms of figuring out at what point people decide when they are going to stop looking for more turtles underneath. If you feel as you indicate here, why are you posting in this thread?

Because the discussion mostly has not been of that nature (or at least the bits I was interested in taking part in).

Then why not make a substantive respond to my post from yesterday? Your flip comment didn't seem to me to do anything other than provide you with the warm-fuzzy of feeling superior by putting me down.

My comment was serious. Rather than recognizing that people can be ignorant of the relevant knowledge, unskilled in evaluating information, and influenced by personal belief systems when forming conclusions, I was hoping that the title of this thread referred to knowledgeable, experienced people attempting to form conclusions without the influence of belief (or at least beliefs made explicit). When your post focussed on the former, I realized I had nothing to add. I don't think it's a contentious issue (at least not from my perspective) that under those circumstances people come up with conclusions that aren't valid. I realize these conditions exist (probably in the majority) and why. I don't know what else I could say about it.

But you know what really gives me the warm-fuzzies? When I don't feel superior. Now that I think about it, that may be a more accurate reason for why I was posting in this thread.

Linda

fls

21st March 2007, 12:51 PM

The problem we are having here, Linda, is that you are having a different discussion with me than I was having with Beth.

I do realize that - sometimes I'm looking for an excuse, and sometimes further input (from you and Beth) makes things more clear. :)

Finally, re "I think the claim is that the methods we use to judge ordinary experiences can be used to judge all experiences."

Actually, that's one of the problems.

Yes. I didn't explicitly state it, but I meant it as a conclusion unsupported by evidence.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

21st March 2007, 02:17 PM

This is the crux of the matter. It is subjective only if you reduce these issues to the point of meaninglessness - something I (and Skeptigirl among others) have been arguing against. I completely agree that it is possible to make "evidence" and "proof" meaningless by bringing everything down to the level of the lowest-common-denominator. My contention has been that other than what appears to be mental masturbation for some, and justification for warm-fuzzies for others, the exercise is pointless. I much rather prefer to use words like "objective", "subjective", "evidence" and "proof" in ways that allow for a meaningful distinction between different kinds of information. I realize that I lose the opportunity to be clever by pointing out that it's turtles all the way down, but at some point can't we all concede that we've taken Philosophy 101 and move on?

Linda

Hey! Don't be so hard on philosophers! Where would the fast food industry be without them?

qayak

21st March 2007, 04:24 PM

Sorry. :)

Linda

Shot down in flames. . .

There's a rock and roll song in there somewhere! :D

Slimething

21st March 2007, 05:56 PM

Science does not just base itself on materialism.
Counter-examples:
clinical medicine
theoretical mathematics.

Gurdur,

I'm content to sit back and watch you make an @55 of yourself with philosophy but science is my turf and you won't get away with the statement above. It's flat wrong.

Science measures and predicts. Remember my bringing up metrics the last time you and I ran into one another? Maybe you should review the scientific method before you start rambling about science.

Also, math is not considered a science.

It's OK if you don't respond but you better lay off the science crap. It's something you obviously know nothing about.

Skeptic Ginger

21st March 2007, 07:16 PM

Now you are just either being silly or annoying. I said, have said, continue to say: A skeptic is someone who doubts knowledge claims, who requires substantial proof of knowledge claims.

You said, "The believer believes it is evidence of their belief, obviously. So long as they do not trumpet that as a fact or claim to know it as a fact (versus have absolute faith in it as a belief) they are not infringing on their ability to be skeptical."

As long as they don't claim their belief is fact, they are sufficiently skeptical? That's a contradiction. Either they believe it which means they consider at least the likelihood of it, or they believe it is possible which is not the same as believing.

But regardless, you are still saying the evidence for their belief is irrelevant. It is arbitrarily up to the individual to define. That isn't my view of the scientific process. Evidence and logic have rules.

No. An apparently similar experience is reported in a markedly different event.Semantics, your sentence here is fine with me.

Gurdur

21st March 2007, 07:35 PM

STILL waiting on your reply to this question here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445046&postcount=490), skeptigirl.

I really want to know what bizarre fantasy was at work there.

Skeptic Ginger

21st March 2007, 07:39 PM

I think this is the critical point - how does one make someone else understand that?

I think that question is rhetorical....or at least (as demonstrated in this thread) without an answer.

LindaFor many people who, for whatever reason, only believe the things that reinforce their existing world view, I don't have an answer.

But for people who are trying to examine all possibilities and for people, especially children, who are learning critical thinking skills, then I think the more precisely we can define or state what it is we mean, the more likely we are to accomplish the goals skeptics like myself have set.

Articulating a concept gives the concept life. The best example I have is one in nursing. A lot of what nurses do went undefined for a century. Nursing has evolved into a highly skilled profession. But for a long time we were only seen as carrying out medical care. I didn't get a Master's degree in doctor assisting, I got one in the nursing profession. To make a long story short, the profession set out to define and describe all the things nurses actually do. Now there are nursing diagnoses as well as medical diagnoses and even though the public isn't necessarily aware of what we do, we are. Until nursing care was articulated, how do you argue with someone who still thinks all you do is follow medical orders?

I see a lot of confusion in this thread over observation, vs evidence, vs evidence of something. What is a conclusion and what is evidence? What makes something evidence of something else and when do you need establish that fact first? I have a much better idea of where the confusion is by discussing the things we have been discussing in this thread. So I think I'll be a tad better prepared to explain the issue the next time.

How about you?

Skeptic Ginger

21st March 2007, 07:41 PM

Evidence may be subjective or objective, but weighings of evidence are always subjective.
So it's subjective to observe a ball roll down hill and conclude it rolled down the hill?

Gurdur

21st March 2007, 07:47 PM

I get a different impression from this post than I did from your post to me.
It looks more like you are moving between ideas of reductionism and holism
No.
All I did was answer your question. You asked which areas of science do not depend solely on materialism. I gave you concrete examples and details.
and a purely materialist description cannot contribute to understanding?
Correct. Certain phenomena are not describable in what is usually known as a materialist POV. That means their nature is not captured in materialist descriptions. One can waffle on all one likes about their material bases, and it accomplishes nothing at all.

You cannot describe the choice or rejection of the ethic "Do not envy" in terms of neurons. You must use a different philosophy. For exactly that reason (non-cogence), many fields of science often do not use materialism.

Skeptic Ginger

21st March 2007, 07:51 PM

Wait your turn Gurdur.

cgallaga

21st March 2007, 07:55 PM

Y
As long as they don't claim their belief is fact, they are sufficiently skeptical?

I never said anything remotely like this. Nice job of twisting my words into a straw man...you seem to excel at that. :rolleyes:

But regardless, you are still saying the evidence for their belief is irrelevant. It is arbitrarily up to the individual to define. That isn't my view of the scientific process. Evidence and logic have rules.

And you are still equivocating science with skepticism. They are not one in the same. I am not a scientists, am I still allowed to be a skeptic? Or is that a title only reserved for the elite scientists among us?

The thread is NOT can a Christian be a Scientists (they can by the way) but can a Christian be a Skeptic (they can by the way).

Gurdur

21st March 2007, 07:56 PM

Wait your turn Gurdur.
Just answer the question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445046&postcount=490), skeptigirl.

I really want to know what bizarre fantasy was at work there. I really want to see your attempt at justification.

Slimething

21st March 2007, 07:58 PM

No.You asked which areas of science do not depend solely on materialism. I gave you concrete examples and details.

You gave faulty examples. And you invoked math again which is not a science. Your points are provably incorrect but you refuse to get specific enough for rebuttal (as usual). Specify one condition in psychiatry which is not due to a material cause or a diagnosis which does not involve a metric. I'll wait here.

Certain phenomena are not describable in what is usually known as a materialist POV.

Such as?

One can waffle on all one likes about their material bases, and it accomplishes nothing at all.

Someone pointing out to you where you're wrong is not "waffling". You're the one waffling here. Get specific or get lost.

You cannot describe the choice or rejection of the ethic "Do not envy" in terms of neurons.

Yes, you can.

For exactly that reason (non-cogence), many fields of science often do not use materialism.

Which ones? Psychiatry? Wrong? Psychology? Wrong? What field of science does not use the scientific method? I'm dying to find out!

Apathia

21st March 2007, 08:02 PM

This is the crux of the matter. It is subjective only if you reduce these issues to the point of meaninglessness - something I (and Skeptigirl among others) have been arguing against. I completely agree that it is possible to make "evidence" and "proof" meaningless by bringing everything down to the level of the lowest-common-denominator. My contention has been that other than what appears to be mental masturbation for some, and justification for warm-fuzzies for others, the exercise is pointless. I much rather prefer to use words like "objective", "subjective", "evidence" and "proof" in ways that allow for a meaningful distinction between different kinds of information. I realize that I lose the opportunity to be clever by pointing out that it's turtles all the way down, but at some point can't we all concede that we've taken Philosophy 101 and move on?

Linda

Piggy made a thread just about this lamentable tendancy to undercut any chance of ariving at useful conclusions.
I just looked for it but found that for some unknown (to me) reason Piggy has vanished from the membership list.
Alas!

Skeptic Ginger

21st March 2007, 08:16 PM

...Well, it certainly isn't proof of their conclusion. However, it may be considered evidence supporting their hypothesis.

Hmmm. Whereas I see it as I haven't gotten through to you regarding the difference between where having a hypothesis stops and making a conclusion starts. I keep talking about evidence supporting a hypothesis which you seem to interpret as saying that the evidence proves the conclusion. In fairness, I don't think I was careful with my phrasing in my first posts in this thread. I have since tried to clarify that but without apparent success.

I'm not saying you should defer to their conclusion. But you've been claiming they don't have any evidence. I think they do, it's just insufficient to come to the conclusion they've reached.

Then why do consistently misinterpret what I am saying about it? When I say evidence supports a hypothesis, you consistently misinterpret that as saying that the evidences proves the conclusion.

Another example: Would you say that the data collected correlating smoking and lung cancer not evidence for a causal relationship until the mechanism of how smoking might cause lung cancer was established? As I interpret what you are saying, you would not consider it evidence at the time of the analysis. You claim that it only became evidence after the causal relationship was established....If I want to look at lung cancer and smoking, then I will look for patterns. But suppose I made the claim, I was going to look at people who look healthy and determine if they had lung cancer by simple outward appearance? Can I then say that was evidence of smoking's relation to lung cancer?

Can I look at someone who looks healthy and determine they have cancer? If I said that was going to be my evidence, would it support anything in the hypothesis about testing lung cancer and smoking if I used such bizarre evidence? Would my conclusion about who did and didn't have cancer be evidence of their cancers?

In this case what is wrong is I have chosen factors to measure that do not tell me if my hypothesis is true or false, yet I am claiming they are evidence which does tell me.

Beth: " When I say evidence supports a hypothesis, you consistently misinterpret that as saying that the evidences proves the conclusion."

This is not correct. Prove or support are just different by degree. The dream example doesn't support the conclusion. I have never misinterpreted your position. You ignored my statements several times that degree of evidence is not the issue, an established connection is the issue.

and "it may be considered evidence supporting their hypothesis"

No, it does not support the hypothesis.

Here is the issue you could address to clarify things but you have not yet done so.

What is it about the dream that you think is the actual evidence? How is it evidence of a grandmother communicating? Do we have any evidence at all that dreams are anything more than internal brain processes?

It is easy for people to make the mistake that something which is logical or appears to be evidence is. But in the case of the dream, there is no scientifically valid reason to say what you dream of is the result of a dead person communicating with you anymore than it is scientifically valid for me to say I can look at you and determine you have cancer. It's just that the dream example fools people the same way reading a horoscope fools people into thinking it is evidence for astrology.

Skeptic Ginger

21st March 2007, 08:25 PM

.....

What I find incredible is how anyone can look at such beliefs from the past and think nothing of calling them myths, (Zeus, Pele, Quetzalcoatl, etc), yet not recognize all beliefs in gods are equally mythical.

I wouldn't worry too much. I personally find it incredible how many refuse to acknowledge the very simple logic that you cannot derive a should from an is, and how some seem to think that science will tell them what great art is and how it should be painted, or tell us whether murder is wrong or not, so I guess we're all discovering incredible things all around us.
Life is a voyage of discovery.
:)

I don't know many scientists looking for morality with the scientific process (though I say if you define the criteria the individual uses to determine it you have the scientific process). I think you can study the human brain and learn a lot about why we enjoy what we enjoy. I enjoy understanding it all.

But tell me, are you implying I need a Bible to tell me murder is wrong and/or the fear of burning in hell to prevent me from killing anyone I feel like? That's a scary thought.

Since you were addressing me, I will ask you flat out:
by what marvellous little piece of paranoid creativity of strawmanship do you get to the second paragraph of your post? Where, indeed, have I implied whatsoever anywhere at all that one needs a Bible? Tell me again, just how did you manage to come up with that crap? And since you obviously don't read replies too carefully, I will remind you for the nth time that I am an atheist, and that my strongest criticism of your nebulous nonsense is that you try implying an objectivity that just doesn't exist --- so I am a subjectivist, and of bloody course I wouldn't be implying anyone needed a Bible.
Now try aswering me again. Honestly this time.

"Scary thought", sheeeeesh. Enjoy frightening yourself for no logical reason at all? Or did you really think you could get away with that stupid strawman?Care to re-read this exchange? I merely asked if that is where you were going with your comment. All you needed to say was you weren't.

Which leaves my next question, what did you mean?

Gurdur

21st March 2007, 08:29 PM

Care to re-read this exchange? I merely asked if that is where you were going with your comment. All you needed to say was you weren't.
Which leaves my next question, what did you mean?
I re-read it. And now I am saying you were being dishonest with your hysterical strawman.
I will ask you AGAIN, and again, till you give me a direct answer instead of your waffling evasions.

How did you come up with your bizarre fantasy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445046&postcount=490) that I was allegedly saying anyone needed the Bible?

Don't try weaseling out of it, just answer.

Skeptic Ginger

21st March 2007, 08:42 PM

Gurd, have you ever asked anyone to clarify their post? Have you ever asked a question to validate what a person seemed to be saying before deciding you could read their mind?

I'm not going to play your stupid game. I've seen it hundreds of times before. It's boring. I asked if religious morality is where you were going with your statement that science didn't have the answers to beauty and morality.

If not science then what? It's a legitimate question.

Gurdur

21st March 2007, 08:48 PM

Gurd, have you ever asked anyone to clarify their post?
Stop attempting to evade the issue of your dishonesty. You made a hysterical little strawman, you got called out on it, and all you are doing is attempting to weasel out of it.

Since you are so abysmally deficient in logic and also in the philosophy of science (let alone clinical patient care, but that's another matter), I will point out that your statement (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445046&postcount=490) was a bizarre, illogical non sequitur, and I am asking by what mad process you arrived at it.
I'm not going to play your stupid game. I've seen it hundreds of times before. It's boring. I asked if religious morality is where you were going with your statement that science didn't have the answers to beauty and morality.
You are the one playing stupid games; you got called out on it, you obviously lack any moral courage in facing up to it.
And I will remind you of this question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445046&postcount=490) again and again, till you finally answer squarely.

Slimething

21st March 2007, 10:34 PM

...in the philosophy of science...

What can anyone say at this point? :jaw-dropp

Skeptic Ginger

22nd March 2007, 02:42 AM

What can anyone say at this point? :jaw-dropp
Nothing.

When I see the words, "dishonesty" it's a red flag for someone who would rather b!+ch than carry on a discussion. As if one could possibly derive motive in another's mind by a few words on in a thread.

And by the way, Gurdur, your question is like asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Since it is based on a false assumption there is no way to answer it.

Ivor the Engineer

22nd March 2007, 03:28 AM

I get the impression Gurdur posts here exclusively to confirm to himself just how clever he is.

Not so much an information exchange, more an information assault on everyone else:D

Skeptic Ginger

22nd March 2007, 03:36 AM

Piggy made a thread just about this lamentable tendancy to undercut any chance of ariving at useful conclusions.
I just looked for it but found that for some unknown (to me) reason Piggy has vanished from the membership list.
Alas!He dis-membered himself. Something about not liking being well known.

Would this be the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63184) you were thinking of?
If not just go to advance search, then search for posts by piggy. You don't need to go to the profile.

Skeptic Ginger

22nd March 2007, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
"As long as they don't claim their belief is fact, they are sufficiently skeptical?"

I never said anything remotely like this. Nice job of twisting my words into a straw man...you seem to excel at that. :rolleyes:

Here is the exact quote:The believer believes it is evidence of their belief, obviously. So long as they do not trumpet that as a fact or claim to know it as a fact (versus have absolute faith in it as a belief) they are not infringing on their ability to be skeptical. And one more time for the world: Skepticism is about determining what it is possible to know, what can constitute knowledge, how we determine what is a fact or an assemblage of facts. NOT what is or is not a belief, or a proposition.

And a more accurate description of the G-force experiment is: we get similar testimony from people under high G-force as we do from people who have a "near death" experience. There is no proof (fact) established that we are testing the "same thing" or that the experience is the same thing. It is a belief, and I suppose a good one, based on some empirical data and some inference, but it is still a belief.Tell me then what specifically differs from the way I paraphrased your words and your actual words (in bold above)?

I don't have an issue with you correcting any misunderstandings I might read into your posts. But there is no need to add fabricated insults. People read what is posted. They aren't reading the mind of the person who posted it. You can just as easily be responsible for not articulating your thoughts very well as the reader could be responsible for mis-interpreting them.

And you are still equivocating science with skepticism. They are not one in the same. I am not a scientists, am I still allowed to be a skeptic? Or is that a title only reserved for the elite scientists among us? And you are failing to realize the scientific process is not confined to scientists, research, and/or laboratories. The scientific process is the equivalent of critical thinking.

Does it matter if I use the words, scientific process, and you use the words, skeptical thinking, and someone else refers to it as, critical thinking, if all of us are referring to evidence based concepts vs belief without evidence?

Evidence and logic have rules regardless of whether you are talking about science or skepticism. Neither a scientist nor a skeptic should accept "a feeling God is in you" as evidence. What rules do you go by, or not?

The thread is NOT can a Christian be a Scientists (they can by the way) but can a Christian be a Skeptic (they can by the way).

Now I could take your approach and say something sarcastic like, "most people can think about whole concepts not just narrow minded literal definitions," and I could also put some rolling eyes on the page.

But in a normal discussion instead of a :catfight: normal people merely ask each other to clarify what was meant when they see different terms used than ones which they themselves would choose. A person might just identify what was different about their interpretation of a term from the way they perceive the other person is using it.

I would then ask you why it's so important for you to concern yourself with the term 'science' when we are both still referring to evidence vs faith?

BillyJoe

22nd March 2007, 05:30 AM

(I'm still giggling over the fact that someone actually asked me that question.)

Don't worry, I didn't giggle exactly, but a fleeting smile did cross my face when I read that comment of yours.

"No evidence for God" means that god is not necessary, sufficient and useful as an explanation. The problem with the second statement is that it is nonsensical in light of your first statement. "No evidence for God" means that god is not necessary, sufficient and useful as an explanation. "Evidence against God" would consist of demonstrating that god is not a necessary, sufficient or useful explanation.

I wrote a response to this but it didn't convince even me, so there's not much chance of sliding it past you. So I pulled it. It always seemed so reasonable before. :(

And that works?

What do mean "works"? All I was saying was that, if you wish to be technically correct AND avoid being namby-pamby to believers, you could say "That also applies to faeries", implying that a belief, without evidence, in God is akin to a belief in faeries. If that gets up their goat, which I think it would then, yes, I suppose it "works".

Apparently, there is no other kind [of atheist than a militant atheist].Must be a joke, because there certainly are.

BillyJoe

22nd March 2007, 05:37 AM

My apologies then to you, BillyJoe. Obviously I misinterpreted your post; my mistake. Mea maxima culpa.Okay.

There was another point though, but I see others have furthered that argument since so I'll let it pass.

fls

22nd March 2007, 05:59 AM

For many people who, for whatever reason, only believe the things that reinforce their existing world view, I don't have an answer.

Damn!

But for people who are trying to examine all possibilities and for people, especially children, who are learning critical thinking skills, then I think the more precisely we can define or state what it is we mean, the more likely we are to accomplish the goals skeptics like myself have set.

Articulating a concept gives the concept life. The best example I have is one in nursing. A lot of what nurses do went undefined for a century. Nursing has evolved into a highly skilled profession. But for a long time we were only seen as carrying out medical care. I didn't get a Master's degree in doctor assisting, I got one in the nursing profession. To make a long story short, the profession set out to define and describe all the things nurses actually do. Now there are nursing diagnoses as well as medical diagnoses and even though the public isn't necessarily aware of what we do, we are. Until nursing care was articulated, how do you argue with someone who still thinks all you do is follow medical orders?

I see a lot of confusion in this thread over observation, vs evidence, vs evidence of something. What is a conclusion and what is evidence? What makes something evidence of something else and when do you need establish that fact first? I have a much better idea of where the confusion is by discussing the things we have been discussing in this thread. So I think I'll be a tad better prepared to explain the issue the next time.

How about you?

It depends upon my level of pessimism. I follow the same strategy as you and others (articulating concepts, practice, picking your and others' brains/experience, etc.), but I cannot confidently* differentiate between those who are unwilling to examine the possibilities (but are pretending that they are) and those where the job has been botched. And I put the pretending part in parentheses, but I find it a critical determination, especially at places like this forum. We can spend a lot of time and effort attempting to meticulously explain these things only to be thwarted when the person we are talking to is absolutely determined not to understand. I think what looks like cynicism and impatience is just some skeptics that are quick to recognize the pretender. I may be secretly envious of their ability to "call it", but most of the time I'm not ready to join them.

For now I'm willing to think that because discussions like this feel like progress, that they actually are progress.

Linda

*the use of this term may be meaningless since my ability to second-guess myself could be considered excessive :)

Apathia

22nd March 2007, 06:36 AM

He dis-membered himself. Something about not liking being well known.

Would this be the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63184) you were thinking of?
If not just go to advance search, then search for posts by piggy. You don't need to go to the profile.

Yes! That's it. Thank you.

There was this kid back in college who would try to derail any discussion of something he disagreed with with a "Hey, you can't prove I exist!"
We began ignoring him as if he didn't.

fls

22nd March 2007, 06:43 AM

No.
All I did was answer your question. You asked which areas of science do not depend solely on materialism. I gave you concrete examples and details.

I meant that it is (was) still not clear what point you are (were) making. What looked like two different ways of presenting the same point (to me) gave me some ideas on how it could be clarified.

Correct. Certain phenomena are not describable in what is usually known as a materialist POV. That means their nature is not captured in materialist descriptions. One can waffle on all one likes about their material bases, and it accomplishes nothing at all.

This point seems to be trivial or meaningless. Scientific investigation involves understanding the parts from which something is made and how they work together. The claim is not that a description of the material which forms a bird (e.g. the z-axis spin on an electron) allows one to understand nesting behaviour. The claim is that nesting behaviour can be understood by studying brain function which can be understood in terms of the interaction of structure and function which can be understood in terms of neurons which can be understood in terms of cellular structure which can be understood in terms of biochemistry which can be understood in terms of physics which can be understood in terms of the description of elementary particles. One could argue that some emergent phenomena are not dependent upon the details of the properties of their parts and this may put some interesting limits on the ability of reductionism to answer certain questions, but it doesn't eliminate the need for "parts".

You seem to think you have a valid criticism, so that can't be what you are talking about, though. So I'm stymied trying to understand what your point is unless you elaborate in greater detail.

You cannot describe the choice or rejection of the ethic "Do not envy" in terms of neurons. You must use a different philosophy. For exactly that reason (non-cogence), many fields of science often do not use materialism.

I fail to understand how variation in the appropriate level of reductionism translates into a qualitative difference that suddenly kicks out the description into a new philosophy (without it being solely the result of playing a naming game). What is "cogence/non-cogence"?

Linda

fls

22nd March 2007, 06:54 AM

What do mean "works"? All I was saying was that, if you wish to be technically correct AND avoid being namby-pamby to believers, you could say "That also applies to faeries", implying that a belief, without evidence, in God is akin to a belief in faeries. If that gets up their goat, which I think it would then, yes, I suppose it "works".

By "works" I mean that it moves them from their position that it is up to you to disprove god.

Must be a joke, because there certainly are.

Well duh!

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

22nd March 2007, 07:41 AM

It depends upon my level of pessimism. I follow the same strategy as you and others (articulating concepts, practice, picking your and others' brains/experience, etc.), but I cannot confidently* differentiate between those who are unwilling to examine the possibilities (but are pretending that they are) and those where the job has been botched. And I put the pretending part in parentheses, but I find it a critical determination, especially at places like this forum. We can spend a lot of time and effort attempting to meticulously explain these things only to be thwarted when the person we are talking to is absolutely determined not to understand. I think what looks like cynicism and impatience is just some skeptics that are quick to recognize the pretender. I may be secretly envious of their ability to "call it", but most of the time I'm not ready to join them.

For now I'm willing to think that because discussions like this feel like progress, that they actually are progress.

Linda

I think what you have to remember is that a natural response to an attack is to attack back, especially for ideas that threaten a persons self-concept. That does not mean your (and others) posts do not have an effect in the long run for some (most?) people who read them.

*the use of this term may be meaningless since my ability to second-guess myself could be considered excessive :)

Tell me about it;)

Beth

22nd March 2007, 08:44 AM

So it's subjective to observe a ball roll down hill and conclude it rolled down the hill?

Yes. It's easier to understand if you reverse the example. Is it subjective to observe a ball roll up a hill and conclude it rolled up the hill? If it's subjective to make that conclusion, it's just as subjective to come to the opposite conclusion.

I can give examples of a ball falsely appearing to roll uphill (ever been in an amusement park's Wacky Shack?) or actually rolling uphill (magnetic pull). Whether I conclude the ball actually rolled uphill or was simply an optical illusion is dependent on the context and how I subjectively weigh the totality of evidence I have available.

The conclusion of whether a ball rolled uphill or downhill is based on a subjective weighing of the evidence available. I can understand if this doesn't seem 'right' to you. It took me a long time to come to terms with the concept.

It's been an interesting conversation. Thank you all for a stimulating discussion. I apologize, but I have not the time for address all of the posts directed at me. I'm preparing to go out of town for the week-end and don't expect to be posting for a few days.

BillyJoe

22nd March 2007, 01:43 PM

By "works" I mean that it moves them from their position that it is up to you to disprove god.Yeah, but you were responding to me, not I to you, so your "works" has to correspond to something I said. ;)

Well duh!

Can't help it I'm slow. :(

BillyJoe

22nd March 2007, 01:52 PM

I think what you have to remember is that a natural response to an attack is to attack back, especially for ideas that threaten a persons self-concept. That does not mean your (and others) posts do not have an effect in the long run for some (most?) people who read them.:)

BillyJoe

22nd March 2007, 02:01 PM

Gurdur,

Not so much an information exchange....

So I'm stymied trying to understand what your point is unless you elaborate in greater detail.

I agree with the above.
It is difficult to understand what exactly your point of view is sometimes.
Is it possible to give a bit more detail and state exactly what your beliefs are, otherwise we all all continue to talk past you and you will continue to attack our lack of understanding.

thanks,
BillyJoe

fls

22nd March 2007, 02:12 PM

Yeah, but you were responding to me, not I to you, so your "works" has to correspond to something I said. ;)

Wrong.

You jumped into the middle of something I said to someone else, so my "works" has to correspond to whatever it was I was talking about.

Linda

fls

22nd March 2007, 02:15 PM

Would this be the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63184) you were thinking of?

Hmmm....it would have saved me some trouble if I had read that thread before participating in this one.

Linda

Skeptic Ginger

22nd March 2007, 03:10 PM

Damn!:selol:

... We can spend a lot of time and effort attempting to meticulously explain these things only to be thwarted when the person we are talking to is absolutely determined not to understand. I think what looks like cynicism and impatience is just some skeptics that are quick to recognize the pretender. I may be secretly envious of their ability to "call it", but most of the time I'm not ready to join them.

Linda

I have had times thinking, "am I actually spending an hour talking with this person who in no way is going to change their view?" But I have found there are many more lurkers than one would guess and other people are actually reading the posts who do get some insight out of it. And, like my sig says, I learn new things from the exercises all the time.

I have gotten better lately in recognizing the post baiters. I'm still working on the best way to reply without wasting too much time.

The other thing I have been paying more attention to lately is why people get so angry when they are not 'believed' or agreed with. It is useful in recognizing the silliness in my getting angry. Not that I have the best record of patience, but I'm better than some I think.

cgallaga

22nd March 2007, 07:41 PM

Semantics, your sentence here is fine with me.

Good but I don't think it is semantics. Only one of the two statements is skeptical, the other assumes an outcome not yet proven to be true.

cgallaga

22nd March 2007, 08:04 PM

Here is the exact quote:Tell me then what specifically differs from the way I paraphrased your words and your actual words (in bold above)?

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
"As long as they don't claim their belief is fact, they are sufficiently skeptical?"

Originally Posted by cgallaga View Post
The believer believes it is evidence of their belief, obviously. So long as they do not trumpet that as a fact or claim to know it as a fact (versus have absolute faith in it as a belief) they are not infringing on their ability to be skeptical.

You really can't see the substantive difference there?

How about this

There are no gods.

There are gods, no?

No?

Your statement says (erroneously) that I used my argument prove they are being skeptical and not just skeptical but sufficiently so.

My statement says that their ability to be skeptical has not been infringed. That regardless of their beliefs they are still free to use skepticism in measuring what is known therefore they can be as skeptical as anyone. It is when their beliefs are turned into truth claims that they stop having the ability to be skeptical in regards to those claims.

The difference is that you did not paraphrase (make the same meaning with other words), rather you changed the meaning completely into something you wanted to attack. This is (as said to you many times before in this very thread) the epitome of a straw man argument.

I don't have an issue with you correcting any misunderstandings I might read into your posts. But there is no need to add fabricated insults.People read what is posted. They aren't reading the mind of the person who posted it. You can just as easily be responsible for not articulating your thoughts very well as the reader could be responsible for mis-interpreting them. I think you are dishonest. There is no reasonable way you could have "read into" my post as you claim, just as there is no reasonable way for me to take the sentence: There are no gods. and claim I though it meant there are gods, no? that is unless I have a sever learning disability like dyslexia. And I'm not sure what fabricated insult you refer to, but fabricating another's words and concepts is an insult of the highest order.

And you are failing to realize the scientific process is not confined to scientists, research, and/or laboratories. The scientific process is the equivalent of critical thinking. Says who?

Does it matter if I use the words, scientific process, and you use the words, skeptical thinking, and someone else refers to it as, critical thinking, if all of us are referring to evidence based concepts vs belief without evidence? Ahh here we go round again. You equate evidence with only scientific empirical evidence. The rest of the world disagrees. You also equate all science with some sort of uber-thesis that does not have belief at its root. This too is incorrect. Belief is based on many forms of reasoning but not empirical evidence. Once empirical evidence is established we call it fact or knowledge. It is at this juncture that skepticism is a useful tool.

Evidence and logic have rules regardless of whether you are talking about science or skepticism. And this is where your disdain for philosophy fails to serve you.I have provided ample evidence in this thread that the rules for evidence are not what you think they are.

But in a normal discussion instead of a catfight normal people merely ask each other to clarify what was meant when they see different terms used than ones which they themselves would choose. A person might just identify what was different about their interpretation of a term from the way they perceive the other person is using it.

Yes and when I provided objective sources of definition of terms you ignored and derided them. Very normal of you I suppose.

I would then ask you why it's so important for you to concern yourself with the term 'science' when we are both still referring to evidence vs faith? Because you brought up the term science and tried to equivocate that term with skepticism. I wholly disagree.

RandFan

22nd March 2007, 10:08 PM

skeptigirl

What I find incredible is how anyone can look at such beliefs from the past and think nothing of calling them myths, (Zeus, Pele, Quetzalcoatl, etc), yet not recognize all beliefs in gods are equally mythical.

I wouldn't worry too much. I personally find it incredible how many refuse to acknowledge the very simple logic that you cannot derive a should from an is, and how some seem to think that science will tell them what great art is and how it should be painted, or tell us whether murder is wrong or not, so I guess we're all discovering incredible things all around us. Gurdur,

Far be it for me to defend skeptigirl. Trust me on this one. We are usualy on opposite sides of debates.

That said, I have to say that I'm a bit puzzled by your responses to this initial line of inquiry.

1.) Your response, IMO, really doesn't follow from what skeptigirl has said. How does the "Is-Ought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem)" problem fit with what she is saying? It really seems a non-sequitur.

2.) So what if we cannot derive an ought from an is? What does this possibly have to do with the question at hand? Art is art whether we can derive an ought from an is or not. I don't know anyone who is trying to justify or explain the subjective purely through objective means. This really seems a red herring.

3.) Your response raises a question that you seem unwilling to answer, what is your point? I think that is what skeptigirl is getting at even if she is doing it poorly by making assumptions. If you are not trying to make a supernatural argument for art and morality then pray tell us what exactly the point is?

4.) For what it's worth, those of us who lean on science to answer most of the questions about our material world don't have a problem with aesthetics, ethics or many other philosophical inquiries that are not bound in empiricism. It's really not a big deal. That's exactly what philosophy is for.

Skeptic Ginger

23rd March 2007, 12:16 AM

Rand fan: "think that is what skeptigirl is getting at even if she is doing it poorly by making assumptions."

cgallaga: "Your statement says (erroneously) that I used my argument prove they are being skeptical and not just skeptical but sufficiently so."

Just a repeat reminder, the failure to get one's point across is not necessarily the fault of the reader. It is possible articulating the point is the problem as well as people hold different pre-existing definitions of terms used. More than likely the fault lies with both parties to varying degree. That is the nature of communication. And just because one person understands what has been said doesn't mean the person who doesn't read the same meaning in the post is making the error. It reflects the fact we have had different experiences which result in different filters all perceived stimuli go through before reaching one's consciousness.

An interpretation is not the same as an "assumption" though the distinction is tricky. An assumption is a conclusion not stated (even remotely) while an interpretation is merely what you think the person meant.

We can't read each other's minds. The idea the error in interpretation always resides with the reader is the wrong assumption.

RandFan

23rd March 2007, 12:24 AM

Skeptic Ginger

23rd March 2007, 12:57 AM

You really can't see the substantive difference there?...How about this ...
There are no gods.

There are gods, no?

No? You really can't see that your post could be read more than one way, can you?

Your example is irrelevant and a waste of time. Just clarify your post without all this other nonsense, thank you.

Your statement says (erroneously) that I used my argument prove they are being skeptical and not just skeptical but sufficiently so. That's not what my statement says at all. Imagine that? Why you must be purposefully distorting what I said so you can then counter it.

Doesn't it ever dawn on you people interpret what they read through a different brain than yours?

I was only stating how I read your post. You seemed to be saying one who believes in un-skeptical things is a skeptic as long as they don't make any claims about the un-skeptical things.

My statement says that their ability to be skeptical has not been infringed. That regardless of their beliefs they are still free to use skepticism in measuring what is known therefore they can be as skeptical as anyone. It is when their beliefs are turned into truth claims that they stop having the ability to be skeptical in regards to those claims. This is more clear (that is if I am interpreting it correctly). It is not how I read your original post. However, it still is not something I agree with. Regardless of their un-skeptical beliefs?

How then is anyone NOT a skeptic? Everyone (with an IQ above 80) is probably capable of critical thinking. If they hold all sorts of beliefs which are not consistent with skepticism, so what if they are "capable" of being a skeptic?

The difference is that you did not paraphrase (make the same meaning with other words), rather you changed the meaning completely into something you wanted to attack. This is (as said to you many times before in this very thread) the epitome of a straw man argument.

I think you are dishonest. There is no reasonable way you could have "read into" my post as you claim, just as there is no reasonable way for me to take the sentence: There are no gods. and claim I though it meant there are gods, no? that is unless I have a sever learning disability like dyslexia. And I'm not sure what fabricated insult you refer to, but fabricating another's words and concepts is an insult of the highest order. You're on to me. It took me a lot of deep thought to come up with a way to purposefully twist your words into something I could tear down just to make me feel superior and to make you look bad. But darn, you caught me. And of course there is no way you could have possibly articulated your point in any way that could be interpreted to mean more than one thing. You're much too superior for that. It had to be my fault, and of course, I must have done it on purpose and with malice aforethought.

All hail the great communicator.

Says who?

Ahh here we go round again. You equate evidence with only scientific empirical evidence. The rest of the world disagrees. You also equate all science with some sort of uber-thesis that does not have belief at its root. This too is incorrect. Belief is based on many forms of reasoning but not empirical evidence. Once empirical evidence is established we call it fact or knowledge. It is at this juncture that skepticism is a useful tool.

And this is where your disdain for philosophy fails to serve you.I have provided ample evidence in this thread that the rules for evidence are not what you think they are. Gees you are such a mind reader. I didn't even know I have disdain for philosophy.

All hail the insightful one.

Yes and when I provided objective sources of definition of terms you ignored and derided them. Very normal of you I suppose.

Because you brought up the term science and tried to equivocate that term with skepticism. I wholly disagree.Would you enjoy carrying on a discussion with someone who believes they can determine your motives and integrity (by psychic means I suppose) and feels the need to throw that crap into the discussion? Wouldn't you rather be discussing different viewpoints, different underlying premises, and be exchanging those ideas and viewpoints, instead of having a discussion cluttered with needless tripe? Is all that judgment adding to this discussion?

The only points here worth discussing are, just how do you distinguish between critical thinking, the scientific process and skepticism? And how is anyone NOT a skeptic if the definition you are using is that they merely need be capable and silent about un-skeptical beliefs?

The rest of your post is just whining about how I evilly plotted to distort your well articulated statements. Boring!

cgallaga

23rd March 2007, 01:03 AM

Boring!

Indeed you are, and dishonest, but mostly boring.

Skeptic Ginger

23rd March 2007, 01:12 AM

Fair enough. FWIW and in the interest of full disclosure, to the extent that you were in error, it is a mistake I have made often.

That said, I'm not interested in debating that aspect. Neither am I so I am just calling people on this stuff and moving on to the actual issues.

Given that Gurdur was right, for the sake of argument, my point stands. As do my questions I should add.Since neither I nor you seemed to know what Gurdur's point was, what is he right about that you are referring to?

Most people giving the, "science can't address morals and 'art' (or some equivalent)" are doing so with the false premise gods are the sources of morality and science is cold and without joy and love. But I do believe I posted that in question form asking if he was implying we all needed gods.

I hold your position that there is no contradiction with skepticism, morals and beauty.

Skeptic Ginger

23rd March 2007, 01:15 AM

Indeed you are, and dishonest, but mostly boring.
So, you called me names and when I pointed those out to you, it miffed you?

Is that because you cannot answer the two questions in my post or because you don't like your own medicine?

cgallaga

23rd March 2007, 02:43 AM

So, you called me names and when I pointed those out to you, it miffed you?

Is that because you cannot answer the two questions in my post or because you don't like your own medicine?

No. First this is just more untruth and dishonest sophistry, but the reason I am bored of you is I just don't like to waste time on dishonest sophists. There are plenty of intelligent and honest people to discuss issues with.

Further evidence of your dishonesty is that in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2451964&postcount=563) you attribute RandFan's words to me.

I will have no more to say to you. Your questions have all been answered and your response has been further sophistry, dishonesty and rhetoric. Enjoy yourself, but do so without my help.

Skeptic Ginger

23rd March 2007, 03:36 AM

...

Further evidence of your dishonesty is that in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2451964&postcount=563) you attribute RandFan's words to me.

....Care to suggest what my dishonest motive might have been there? :rolleyes:

It was a mere copy error as far as I can tell and it's too late to edit. When I split posts to reply a section at a time I copy/paste the "QUOTE=cgallaga;2452079" heading instead of just "quote" because it identifies the person being quoted. I assume I accidentally had your heading in the copy function from the previous post I had made and didn't realize it. So when I hit the paste command, the wrong quote heading was copied.

Normally I'd apologize. I think I'll wait until you apologize first.

But I will apologize to RandFan. Sorry, my bad. I'd fix it if I could.

fls

23rd March 2007, 03:57 AM

Yes. It's easier to understand if you reverse the example. Is it subjective to observe a ball roll up a hill and conclude it rolled up the hill? If it's subjective to make that conclusion, it's just as subjective to come to the opposite conclusion.

I can give examples of a ball falsely appearing to roll uphill (ever been in an amusement park's Wacky Shack?) or actually rolling uphill (magnetic pull). Whether I conclude the ball actually rolled uphill or was simply an optical illusion is dependent on the context and how I subjectively weigh the totality of evidence I have available.

The conclusion of whether a ball rolled uphill or downhill is based on a subjective weighing of the evidence available.

The next question is....

If I visit the Wacky Shack with my level and see that what appears to be an upward sloping incline is actually a downward sloping incline when the effects of an optical illusion are removed and conclude that the ball is moving in a manner consistent with being acted upon by the force of gravity, is there any difference in the validity of those two conclusions?

Linda

BillyJoe

23rd March 2007, 05:44 AM

Wrong....You jumped into the middle of something I said to someone else, so my "works" has to correspond to whatever it was I was talking about.

Yes, you were replying to Voidx. But, guess what? He was replying to me in the post of his that you responded to. So guess who jumped into the middle? :D
Anyway this is getting a bit silly.

fls

23rd March 2007, 06:03 AM

Yes, you were replying to Voidx. But, guess what? He was replying to me in the post of his that you responded to. So guess who jumped into the middle? :D
Anyway this is getting a bit silly.

Getting?

Linda

Moochie

23rd March 2007, 09:05 AM

Geez Moochie, this is the saddest thing I read for a long time. I hope things have improved for you since. I think I do remember a happy converstion about your wife so I trust that is the case.

Yeah, my childhood was a sad, unhappy time, although I am very far from unique in having had such an experience.

It was so for many reasons, but hanging over it all like one of those purple-gray clouds that presage a storm was the issue of religion, principally my parents' incredibly naive (and therefore moronic) "understanding" and practice of it.

While all of that eventually led to a rift that was never healed, my life today is far, far better than it was then.

Among the many things that make it better are my ability to participate in this forum and hence be exposed to some great, and sometimes not-so-great thoughts, from people who often make me smile and consider how fortunate I am for sharing this place with them.

M.

luchog

23rd March 2007, 12:31 PM

All I know is that it is ok with Mr.Randi that I, a believer still, am here.

As am I, hence my title. :)

I'm getting into this a bit late, since I'm rarely able to spend much time on the forum these days; but wanted to throw in my US$.02 (CDN$.0172, AUS$.016).

The problem with those who claim to debunk religion is that belief in G-D, oat least the Judeo-Christian G-D, is unfalsifiable. It's purely a matter of faith. (The same goes for many other religious beliefs as well, such as most forms of Buddhism). There is no direct physical claim made by such a belief.

Conflicts occur between science and Christianity (and, by derivation, Judaism; I'm not speaking for other religions, since I simply don't know enough about them to do so) mainly when ignorant or agenda-driven (pseudo-?)Christians make actual physical claims that are unsupported by Scripture (a combination of extreme forms of literalism, and an inadequate understanding of the text); or when those supposedly supporting science make assertions that are based on an inadequate knowledge of science, Christianity, or (most often) both. Much of what is claimed in Scripture to violate known science is presented in a figurative literary mode, not a literal one; and is not intended to be a literal explanation of the world.

That is not to say that there is no evidence at all for our beliefs. For many of us there is plenty of what we would call indirect evidence. But again, this is open to interpretation and not falsifiable; hence the reason it is faith. A common objection to a Christian interpretation of natural science as supporting their belief is that there it doesn't function perfectly. That's a specious argument that indicates a lack of understanding of Christian doctrine; and the principle of corruption of nature.

In contrast, practices such as reiki, "distance healing", pychic powers, telepathy, etc. are by definition falsifiable phenomena. They claim to have real, measureable physical effects which can be proven or disproven by scientific experimentation. So far, none have been adequately proven.

Unfortunately, just as many Christians as non-Christians lack an adequate understanding of both Christianity and science; as evidenced by the proliferation of totally whackjob versions of both. And there are plenty of con artists who claim to be Christian and/or scientists, but are neither, and are simply using the trapping to cloak their own greed and lust for money and power. Both of these situations are addressed in Scripture, and there are plenty of warnings regarding them. But for Christians, like scientists, critical thinking is an important and necessary skill; and one which people do not always develop or use adequately.

BillyJoe

23rd March 2007, 01:04 PM

Getting?

As always, Linda, I will let you have the last word. :)

BillyJoe

23rd March 2007, 01:21 PM

Yeah, my childhood was a sad, unhappy time, although I am very far from unique in having had such an experience.

It was so for many reasons, but hanging over it all like one of those purple-gray clouds that presage a storm was the issue of religion, principally my parents' incredibly naive (and therefore moronic) "understanding" and practice of it.

While all of that eventually led to a rift that was never healed, my life today is far, far better than it was then.

Among the many things that make it better are my ability to participate in this forum and hence be exposed to some great, and sometimes not-so-great thoughts, from people who often make me smile and consider how fortunate I am for sharing this place with them.

M.

I'm really happy to hear it, Moochie.
My parents were also religious, but theirs was the mild, user-friendly type of religion, by which I mean it helped them in time of need. For me it was religious instructors filling me with the fear of Hell fire along with plenty of cognitive dissonace, that led to the break. My parents, especially my father who was a kind and gentle person, always supported me depite our differences in outlook.
It is hard for me to imagine what it would have been like for you not to have this sort of support. So, good on you for getting through - rough edges and all! :)

BJ

BillyJoe

23rd March 2007, 01:52 PM

I'm getting into this a bit late, since I'm rarely able to spend much time on the forum these days; but wanted to throw in my US$.02 (CDN$.0172, AUS$.016).

A few years ago the exchange rate was down to 53%. Now it's just over 80% Won't be long before Australia will be a better place to live - hey, wait a minute!

The problem with those who claim to debunk religion is that belief in G-D, at least the Judeo-Christian G-D, is unfalsifiable.

That was supposed to be the difference between:
"I do not believe there is a God".
"I believe there is no God".

For a sceptic to hold the second view, there must be evidence that God does not exist (ie, that He can be debunked, as you say).
So, perhaps there is more than just a technical difference between the two statements. Perhaps the difference has practical application after all -when discussing God with believers. However I will leave you to argue that point with Linda if you feel inspired to do so.

It's purely a matter of faith.

It seems so. The question is why this God and not that God? Any why any God at all? What gets you to this position of believing without evidence. What basis is there for believing you are correct in your particular brand of Faith.

That is not to say that there is no evidence at all for our beliefs. For many of us there is plenty of what we would call indirect evidence. But again, this is open to interpretation and not falsifiable; hence the reason it is faith.

You say you have no direct evidence, but that you have indirect evidence. The indirect evidence is open to interpretation. That is fine. The direct evidence is also unfalsifyable. That is not fine. Hence the reason for faith. For me, if the evidence is open to interpretation, and especially if it is also unfalsifyable, that is a reason to reject it unless and until the evidence starts loading up on one side or the other.

fls

23rd March 2007, 02:25 PM

For a sceptic to hold the second view, there must be evidence that God does not exist (ie, that He can be debunked, as you say).
So, perhaps there is more than just a technical difference between the two statements. Perhaps the difference has practical application after all -when discussing God with believers. However I will leave you to argue that point with Linda if you feel inspired to do so.

Those statements need only apply when believers make direct physical claims. If beliefs are not literal, then there really isn't anything to object to (or disbelieve) as there isn't anything being asked of the non-believer. And it goes back to the "definition of a Christian" component of this thread - just whom are we talking about?

Linda

luchog

24th March 2007, 11:18 PM

You say you have no direct evidence, but that you have indirect evidence. The indirect evidence is open to interpretation. That is fine. The direct evidence is also unfalsifyable. That is not fine. Hence the reason for faith. For me, if the evidence is open to interpretation, and especially if it is also unfalsifyable, that is a reason to reject it unless and until the evidence starts loading up on one side or the other.

I'm not sure where you got the "direct evidence is also unfalsifiable" since I've stated that I don't have direct evidence. There cannot be solid, direct evidence. However, there is a lot of what I see as indirect, circumstantial evidence that paints a solid picture of who and what G-D is.

Why this one and no others? Because this one doesn't contradict what we can observe around is. In fact, the Judeo-Christian view of G-D was a significant contributing factor to the development of the scientific method. While all other religions held a whimsical, even capricious view of their diety, and a view of nature as similarly inconstant, the Judeo-Christian principle of G-D being "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow", and creating a similarly consistent worldview, led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe that He created being something that could be systematically investigated and understood.

Note I said acceptance, not creation. There have been a number of attempts at the formulation of something like a scientific method based on a constant universe; but these were generally incomplete, and lacked an environment conducive to their acceptance. Even the Greek philosophers who favored a static universe worldview, generally did so by basing it on an unproven and unfasifiable belief system (such as the Platonic Absolute). Socratic method came closest, but still failed to find a strong enough reception. Discoveries were made as much on unsystematic trial and error as on systematic exploration of a principle, and were rarely developed beyond the level of curiosities. Some more practical inventions were developed from observation, but not investigated to the point where the underlying principles were derived.

It's late and I'm starting to ramble, so I should wrap it up at this point, since I'm not entirely sure where I was going. Suffice to say that the G-D that I know is the only one who is consistent with the world, and whose scripture provide a non-contradictory, and even predictive, set of information about the world.

luchog

24th March 2007, 11:39 PM

Those statements need only apply when believers make direct physical claims. If beliefs are not literal, then there really isn't anything to object to (or disbelieve) as there isn't anything being asked of the non-believer. And it goes back to the "definition of a Christian" component of this thread - just whom are we talking about?

The interesting thing is that the Judeo-Christian scripture makes very very few direct physical claims; unlike many who profess to adhere to said scripture. Those that it does make tend to be fairly generalized. Most religions make far more specific claims; based either on an intervening deity, or on some variant of imposition of human will on the universe (eg. New Age perceptual/consensual reality teachings like Positive Confession and Creative Visualization). Unfortunately, throughout history a many Christians (and to a lesser extent, Jews) have accepted and promulgated incorrect and even heretical pagan, Gnostic, and New Age beliefs.

That doesn't mean, however, that there is nothing being asked of the unbeliever. It merely means that no one is asked to accept anything that runs diametrically opposed to observable reality. No one is asked to accept that the speed of light in a vaccuum will ever change. That Planck's constant is inconstant and dependent on the whim of a variable deity. But they are asked to accept that the universe as we see it was created by a being that exemplifies the constancy that we observe. That a universe that operates by unchanging, reliable, and discoverable rules is the result of it's creation by an entity who is Himself unchanging and reliable, imbues His creation with His nature, and is therefore discoverable through His creation.

BillyJoe

25th March 2007, 03:46 AM

I'm not sure where you got the "direct evidence is also unfalsifiable" since I've stated that I don't have direct evidence.

It was a typo. I meant "indirect evidence is also unfalsifiable" Sorry.

There cannot be solid, direct evidence. However, there is a lot of what I see as indirect, circumstantial evidence that paints a solid picture of who and what G-D is.

But, if the evidence is indirect, open to interpretation, and non-falsifiable how can you base an important part on your life on it?

Why this one and no others? Because this one doesn't contradict what we can observe around us. In fact, the Judeo-Christian view of G-D was a significant contributing factor to the development of the scientific method. While all other religions held a whimsical, even capricious view of their diety, and a view of nature as similarly inconstant, the Judeo-Christian principle of G-D being "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow", and creating a similarly consistent worldview, led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe that He created being something that could be systematically investigated and understood.

Okay, I see you have a reason for picking the "Judeo-Christian view of G-D" (why G-D by the way?). I not really inclined to say anything in response because, when you can see no reason to believe in God, it seems pointless (for me) to discus which sort of god to not believe in. Anyway, it is interesting that you have a reason. Did you convert or where you fortunate enough to be born into the belief in the correct God. (oops, sorry if that sounds cynical, that wasn't my intention.)

fls

25th March 2007, 07:25 AM

That doesn't mean, however, that there is nothing being asked of the unbeliever. It merely means that no one is asked to accept anything that runs diametrically opposed to observable reality. No one is asked to accept that the speed of light in a vaccuum will ever change. That Planck's constant is inconstant and dependent on the whim of a variable deity. But they are asked to accept that the universe as we see it was created by a being that exemplifies the constancy that we observe. That a universe that operates by unchanging, reliable, and discoverable rules is the result of it's creation by an entity who is Himself unchanging and reliable, imbues His creation with His nature, and is therefore discoverable through His creation.

We believe that the universe operates by unchanging, reliable and discoverable rules because this is what we observe. If we observed something different, then the nature of God would be different. These are all different ways of saying the same thing - God cannot tell us anything a priori about the nature of the universe, God cannot provide useful (falsifiable) explanations/predictions, the presence or absence of an a priori belief in the existence of God does not change the a posteriori knowledge that can be derived from scientific study.

So I guess what I meant was, other than declining the invitation to join you in your faith, you aren't asking anything of the non-believer.

Linda

cgallaga

25th March 2007, 08:13 AM

But they are asked to accept that the universe as we see it was created by a being that exemplifies the constancy that we observe. That a universe that operates by unchanging, reliable, and discoverable rules is the result of it's creation by an entity who is Himself unchanging and reliable, imbues His creation with His nature, and is therefore discoverable through His creation.

Now a skeptic can say, Prove it. Because you have taken a belief in how thing may have worked out and made it into a claim of fact about how things do work. You can not have that claim of fact without empirical proof and remain a skeptic.

Moochie

25th March 2007, 10:36 AM

I'm not sure where you got the "direct evidence is also unfalsifiable" since I've stated that I don't have direct evidence. There cannot be solid, direct evidence. However, there is a lot of what I see as indirect, circumstantial evidence that paints a solid picture of who and what G-D is.

Why this one and no others? Because this one doesn't contradict what we can observe around is. In fact, the Judeo-Christian view of G-D was a significant contributing factor to the development of the scientific method. While all other religions held a whimsical, even capricious view of their diety, and a view of nature as similarly inconstant, the Judeo-Christian principle of G-D being "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow", and creating a similarly consistent worldview, led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe that He created being something that could be systematically investigated and understood.

Note I said acceptance, not creation. There have been a number of attempts at the formulation of something like a scientific method based on a constant universe; but these were generally incomplete, and lacked an environment conducive to their acceptance. Even the Greek philosophers who favored a static universe worldview, generally did so by basing it on an unproven and unfasifiable belief system (such as the Platonic Absolute). Socratic method came closest, but still failed to find a strong enough reception. Discoveries were made as much on unsystematic trial and error as on systematic exploration of a principle, and were rarely developed beyond the level of curiosities. Some more practical inventions were developed from observation, but not investigated to the point where the underlying principles were derived.

It's late and I'm starting to ramble, so I should wrap it up at this point, since I'm not entirely sure where I was going. Suffice to say that the G-D that I know is the only one who is consistent with the world, and whose scripture provide a non-contradictory, and even predictive, set of information about the world.

And the myth that you know is no different from our beloved FSM.

Fun to gabble on about, maybe, but not a shred to do with reality.

M.

luchog

25th March 2007, 02:52 PM

Now a skeptic can say, Prove it. Because you have taken a belief in how thing may have worked out and made it into a claim of fact about how things do work. You can not have that claim of fact without empirical proof and remain a skeptic.

I'm not really sure what it is that you're asking me to prove here. Prove that the universe operates by constant, immutable, discoverable laws? That's an observation that's at the heart of all scientific investigation. I doubt you'll find a reputable scientist who would argue that point.

cgallaga

25th March 2007, 06:15 PM

I'm not really sure what it is that you're asking me to prove here. Prove that the universe operates by constant, immutable, discoverable laws? That's an observation that's at the heart of all scientific investigation. I doubt you'll find a reputable scientist who would argue that point.

The interesting thing is that the Judeo-Christian scripture makes very very few direct physical claims; unlike many who profess to adhere to said scripture.
<snip>

But they are asked to accept that the universe as we see it was created by a being that exemplifies the constancy that we observe. That a universe that operates by unchanging, reliable, and discoverable rules is the result of it's creation by an entity who is Himself unchanging and reliable, imbues His creation with His nature, and is therefore discoverable through His creation.

Prove the bold parts...especially those underlined. They are claims of fact with no empirical evidence, and thus they can only amount to a belief, but you state them as claims of fact that must be accepted. So you need to prove them. This is where a Christian can no longer be a skeptic, unless that is, that Christian can provide empirical evidence (not inference) of their claims of fact.

voidx

26th March 2007, 10:18 AM

As you pointed out, all recognize that there is no evidence for god - that god is neither necessary, sufficient, nor useful - making its existence, in terms of explanatory potential, irrevelant.

Well except those who still argue that personal experience is some kind of quasi evidence for God. Personal experiences, unless dualism is induced is still arguably physical. I admit its a tad trifling, but I still see people trying to slip it in. And whatever peoples thoughts on consciousness, it does need to be addressed rather than given a pass as though personal experiences are somehow completely unknowable from a scientific stand point.

I assume that believers ask this of you. That it is logically indefensible for them to do so doesn't seem to stop them.

***

No. You elaborated on my point. One gets tired of their tricks - "disprove it", "you're just close-minded", "explain this, then". I understand the temptation to come up with your own tricks - wording it in a way that makes it difficult for them to beg their (logically indefensible) question ("I'm not making any statement about the existence of your god, I'm just not including it"). Of course, that's just a guess on my part. :)

Linda
The internet can be a little tricky at times. It seems we essentially agree. Although you seem to take my stance on not positing God as a bit of a trick to intentionlly make it harder to beg the question. I don't deny there is perhaps some truth in that, but to phrase it as a trick doesn't quite ring true. I think it can be more clearly stated that I think there is a seperation between one's stance on explaining the observable universe around us, and larger theories about the creation of the universe as a whole. I'm merely trying to point out that there is in fact a distinction, and if that happens to lay bare the fact that some people are begging the question, well...then...guilty as charged on being tricky :).

I see people mixing the two, or expecting that one has an official stance on both. At this point, any theory on the creation of the universe, or any metaphysical assumptions are not falsifiable, scientific or unscientific, and so they really are just mental jumping jacks. I suppose my main issue is that in this regard, I don't have a firm opinion. I don't have a sacred cow that I knowingly cling to. Because I'm, logically in my opinion, filled with doubt about the creation of the universe. It seems to me, though, that those that posit a God, don't have that level of doubt on this metaphysical level. Their faith and their belief essentially prevents it.

They appear to me to be caught in a web of confusion, knowing there is no logical basis for their belief, seeking refuge for it in the meta-physical unknowns and gaps of our knowledge, but at the same time, wanting to link personal experiences, something certainly knowable and not metaphysical, to the validation of that belief.

I suspect that unknowingly, many people still don't know where to put personal conscious experiences, and so they kind of float between the objective observable universe and some grey wishy washy metaphysical plane that makes them unknowable, and hence...unassailable.

fls

26th March 2007, 12:52 PM

Well except those who still argue that personal experience is some kind of quasi evidence for God. Personal experiences, unless dualism is induced is still arguably physical. I admit its a tad trifling, but I still see people trying to slip it in. And whatever peoples thoughts on consciousness, it does need to be addressed rather than given a pass as though personal experiences are somehow completely unknowable from a scientific stand point.

I am not dismissing personal experience (or passing over it), but rather including it. The contribution of personal experience is what was underlying the discussion with Beth. It's not so much a question of whether it is evidence, but rather what it is evidence of.

The internet can be a little tricky at times. It seems we essentially agree. Although you seem to take my stance on not positing God as a bit of a trick to intentionlly make it harder to beg the question. I don't deny there is perhaps some truth in that, but to phrase it as a trick doesn't quite ring true. I think it can be more clearly stated that I think there is a seperation between one's stance on explaining the observable universe around us, and larger theories about the creation of the universe as a whole. I'm merely trying to point out that there is in fact a distinction, and if that happens to lay bare the fact that some people are begging the question, well...then...guilty as charged on being tricky :).

Well, that was my fault, as I was speaking facetiously (it is possible I had one or more glasses of wine). I wasn't disagreeing, but rather recognizing familiar territory. The use of the word "trick" reflected my own revelation that my commitment to making that distinction, in the past, was more about not wanting to listen to the same old (fallacious) arguments, than about whether there was any real (or maybe relevant) distinction to be made.

I see people mixing the two, or expecting that one has an official stance on both. At this point, any theory on the creation of the universe, or any metaphysical assumptions are not falsifiable, scientific or unscientific, and so they really are just mental jumping jacks. I suppose my main issue is that in this regard, I don't have a firm opinion. I don't have a sacred cow that I knowingly cling to. Because I'm, logically in my opinion, filled with doubt about the creation of the universe. It seems to me, though, that those that posit a God, don't have that level of doubt on this metaphysical level. Their faith and their belief essentially prevents it.

They appear to me to be caught in a web of confusion, knowing there is no logical basis for their belief, seeking refuge for it in the meta-physical unknowns and gaps of our knowledge, but at the same time, wanting to link personal experiences, something certainly knowable and not metaphysical, to the validation of that belief.

I suspect that unknowingly, many people still don't know where to put personal conscious experiences, and so they kind of float between the objective observable universe and some grey wishy washy metaphysical plane that makes them unknowable, and hence...unassailable.

I agree. I don't really have anything to add that isn't just saying the same thing.

Linda

korenyx

26th March 2007, 04:41 PM

I'm a questioning Christian and that puts me right down there with all the heathens according to some of my more right-wing cousins and co-workers. I try to change the world for the better like Jesus said to do and don't sit around talking about how saved I am (more coal on the fires of hell; some fundies think I should just be waiting for the rapture).
I do have some New Age friends but I try to show them the skeptical light rather than putting them down.

kore.

P.S. I work in a bookstore and my rudest customers are right-wing Christians.

Skeptic Ginger

26th March 2007, 04:55 PM

Interesting statement, korenyx. Welcome to JREF.

What do you question as a Christian?

Moochie

27th March 2007, 08:29 AM

cgallaga

27th March 2007, 06:05 PM

He's got nasty, big, pointy teeth.! He's got huge, sharp-- eh-- he can leap about-- look at the bones!

adler

27th March 2007, 06:55 PM

you can only be both for a short time and then you have to come to the conclusion that god is only pretend, if you dont, you have a room temp. IQ

cgallaga

27th March 2007, 07:20 PM

you can only be both for a short time and then you have to come to the conclusion that god is only pretend, if you dont, you have a room temp. IQ

Your hypothesis does not wash with either historical or current fact.

Gurdur

28th March 2007, 03:01 PM

---> RandFan and everyone else: long reply ahead
I've been away from the board for a few days, doing more important things like vBulletin coding and the like. :) So here's a long reply.
Since neither I nor you seemed to know what Gurdur's point was, what is he right about that you are referring to?
It's a major fallacy to think that everyone else is ignorant merely because one likes to be willfully ignorant oneself, skeptigirl (and what a misnomer that is, eh? ;) ). Have you even bothered to look up the elementary point of logic on "should"/"is" yet? I'll bet anything you haven't, and given your dishonesty in that, in your attitudes, and your strawmanning, I'll reply mostly to Randfan here. Most people giving the, "science can't address morals and 'art' (or some equivalent)" are doing so with the false premise gods are the sources of morality
Again dishonest of skeptigirl. she's been informed right throughout this thread and others a whole lot of times that science cannot address morals because of the problems of subjectivity, and the fact that one cannot logically derive a "should" from an "is". But she willfully ignores all that all over yet again, settling instead for strawmanning and unsubstantiated claims. She is simply not being honest.
1.) Your response, IMO, really doesn't follow from what skeptigirl has said. How does the "Is-Ought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem)" problem fit with what she is saying? It really seems a non-sequitur.
Nope, very wrong. If you read right through this thread (as well as other threads), you will see me very often replying to her pointing out in great detail the essential fallacy in her position; at every turn when she's confronted with that, she retreats into contentless verbose waffling, only to try returning to her position that somehow science can magically provide morals whenever she can. Given her repetitive pointblank refusal to answer posts and points squarely, she's merely waffling around in what amounts to her stance of posing a false dichotomy between only science and religion, a stance that leads her to essentially trying to turn science into a religion. It's not only not a skeptical stance, it's deeply hypocritical when she attacks the Christians for doing what she does herself (deriving false objectivities), and it is also an attitude inimical and dangerous to science. Much more in the way of explanation later in this post.
2.) So what if we cannot derive an ought from an is? What does this possibly have to do with the question at hand? Art is art whether we can derive an ought from an is or not.
I don't know anyone who is trying to justify or explain the subjective purely through objective means.
Try reading more skeptigirl. :p
3.) Your response raises a question that you seem unwilling to answer, what is your point? I think that is what skeptigirl is getting at even if she is doing it poorly by making assumptions.
The initial points should have been very clear if you have been exactly following this thread; however, they will be expanded on more here.
4.) ....That's exactly what philosophy is for.
Well, YES. Now tell that to skeptigirl, who is covinced she knows it all and needs no learning of logic or philosophy, and above all, who will waffle at you. :p
But this is a very important point; for example, and getting away from skeptigirl for the moment, I direct you to this reply by fls to me earlier on in the thread, a reply which shows IMHO a common ignorance.
....It looks more like you are moving between ideas of reductionism and holism...
Now this reply of fls' strikes me as mystifiying. To explain more, the original point at hand between fls and myself was if science only uses materialism; materialism as a group of philosophies is a fairly-well defined school, and it is a monist school. Now my sole point to her back, and it was precisely put to her, was that science does not only use materialism and monism, in fact science often uses non-materialist philosophies --- I gave several concrete examples, such as theoretical mathematics here --- and even dualist philosophies, such as used in psychology, clinical medicine or psychiatry. First of all fls objected to me "dragging" in psychology or psychiatry, even though these are sciences. Then when I pointed out to her that these were sciences too, and that she also ignored my other example of theoretical mathematics, she comes back with this.

Now, throwing around buzzwords like "reductionism" and "holism" in response only means in effect ducking the question; the question was whether science is only based on materialism, and the answer is it isn't. Dualism does NOT mean religion; religion can be either monist or dualist, and when science uses philosophies which make a sharp distinction in description between monist physical models and dualist cognitive models, then it is using dualist philosophies, and all dualism means there is a divide in explanatory models -- it does not imply religion in any way. These philosophical strands often have very precise names (e.g. verificationalism, realism, falsificationalism, etc. etc.) and not even using the term "materialism" correctly, and using undefined buzzwords like "holism" instead, indicates to me an ignorance about this whole area, an area which is quite important to science and to humanity (think medical ethics for the huge example, an example to which I will return in just a moment).
you can only be both for a short time and then you have to come to the conclusion that god is only pretend, if you dont, you have a room temp. IQ
Now take this post for an example; typical of much of the juvenile addiction to the contentless ad hominem. Illogical, fallacious and quite unlikely to be challenged much, since so many so unfortunately like turning atheism into tribalism.

Now let's get back to skeptigirl. Throughout her output she will continually try weaseling in ways for science to provide ethics; science cannot and does not produce ethics, which is the reason for my reiterating the whole point.

So yet again, if science cannot produce ethics (witness, for example, medical ethics, a whole field and an occupation in and of itself), then where do ethics come from?
They come from you and me.
To be more explanatory, ethics are what humans produce; what ethics will actually be adopted is all dependent on what society decides, in various intersubjective ways, and on what each individual decides for themselves.

That has been said before in this thread; did skeptigil take any notice? Not a chance.

Now: when people like her try turning science into a new religion, because they simply don't know and they don't want to know elementary logic or that much about real science, they become also quite dangerous for science; whenever science comes up with something they don't want to hear, they will try pressurizing science to force it to only produce what they want to hear --- just as the current Bush adminisitration has been pressurizing the USA scientific community over the global warming issues for the last six years. Or if you have a sense of history, try Heidegger's Rektoratsrede for a big example of politicization of science and philosophy, or read The Closing Of the American Mind (http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Allan-Bloom/dp/0671657151/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6009897-8132860?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175118551&sr=1-1), which deals with the subject at length --- or if you prefer an example from this board, try any thread where the latest WHO recommendation on male circumcision will get bitterly attacked. That last example is a biggie; male circumcision is a hot-button issue within the atheist and skeptic communities, and it's bitterly funny to see self-proclaimed sceptics lining up to flame scientists in threads for not doing what they proclaim to be science --- just as bad morally as the Bush admin putting enormous and illegitimate pressure on scientists about condoms, family planning or global warming.

Nietszche wrote over 100 years ago that "God is dead"; by that, he meant all objectification and putative objective origins of morals had disappeared under the weight of evidence. People like skeptigirl continually try resurrecting god, this time as alleged "science", and it's inimical to science itself, as well as willfully ignorant.

Now, pretty much all this has been said before in this thread. But has skeptigirl taken any notice at all? Will she take any notice now? No, she'll only dive back when she can to accusing anyone who disagrees with her of advocating the Bible, or some total crap like that, because it makes such a nice hysterical strawman, and avoids all need for her for real thought.

Skeptic Ginger

28th March 2007, 05:45 PM

Here's an ironic fact, Gurdur: Just because something is posted doesn't mean it is a fact.

Gurdur: "she's been informed right throughout..."

That's laughable. There's a whole thread debating the 'science addressing morals' (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77649#post2466805) issue so regardless of the conclusion you have drawn on the matter it doesn't mean you have drawn the correct conclusion.

Second fact: I am an honest person. I am very tired of seeing people throw that invalid cliche at others. Unless you are claiming to be able to read people's minds or unless they tell you, you cannot possibly know if their reasons for posting anything were honest or not.

I'm impressed you think I deserved an entire ranting post. I must have pushed your button. From the nonsense in your post though, it doesn't seem like that was hard to do. If you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, be my guest. If you just want to gripe that you didn't like what someone else said, don't expect any discussion from me on your points. I see no point in it.

Slimething

28th March 2007, 06:51 PM

I've been away from the board for a few days, doing more important things like vBulletin coding and the like.

Don't believe you but that's immaterial. I believe you came back after you felt most of us had forgotten our questions to you. Sorry to disappoint you.

To explain more, the original point at hand between fls and myself was if science only uses materialism; materialism as a group of philosophies is a fairly-well defined school,

OK. Define it.

... science does not only use materialism and monism, in fact science often uses non-materialist philosophies

Again I ask you for just one specific example. I'm beggin' ya! Take pity on me. I only want one example where science does not use a metric of physical properties. Please!!!

--- I gave several concrete examples, such as theoretical mathematics here --- and even dualist philosophies, such as used in psychology, clinical medicine or psychiatry.

Psychology, clinical medicine and psychiatry are not examples. They are fields of science. Mathematics is not a science.

Again, I wait for a reply. Probably in vain, though.

BTW. Skeptigirl, this guy's got a real thing for you, doesn't he! I wish I could be happy for you.

Gurdur

29th March 2007, 05:26 AM

That's laughable. There's a whole thread debating the 'science addressing morals' (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77649#post2466805) issue
I'll simply point out yet again you've been informed right throughout this thread, so how about you deal with it?
Second fact: I am an honest person.
Sure, sure, whatever. Now deal with it.
I am very tired of seeing people throw that invalid cliche at others.
Ha ha, make me laugh some more. :D You've been informed in great detail of your strawmanning, so deal with it.
Unless you are claiming to be able to read people's minds or unless they tell you, you cannot possibly know if their reasons for posting anything were honest or not.
Nonsense. Try weaseling some more; BTW, I will keep this gem in mind next time you decide to attack someone.
I'm impressed you think I deserved an entire ranting post. I must have pushed your button.
Oh, don't be so so hysterical and silly. You got answered, that's all there is to it. So now deal with it.
From the nonsense in your post though, it doesn't seem like that was hard to do.
I guewss you're really prejudiced against elementary logic; never mind, I shall point out your contentless aversion to elementary logic each and every time.
I note you have once again failed to deal with a single concrete point, but don't worry, my answer was mainly for others.
:)
I see no point in it.
No, what you mean is you have zero idea, you don't want to answer points and you have no wish to learn logic. Hey, that's OK. As long as you don't mind it being pointed out.
:)

BillyJoe

29th March 2007, 05:48 AM

Have you even bothered to look up the elementary point of logic on "should"/"is" yet?

Science tells us what "is".
Morals tells us what "ought" to be.
You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".

However, at the very least there is a connection between the two. The connection is that we must be informed by science about what "is", before we can derive what "ought" to be the case. In other words, at the very least, morals must have a scientific base.

...science cannot address morals because of the problems of subjectivity....

This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Many scientists and philosophers would disagree with your opinion. The problem of subjectivity is the problem of (self) consciousness which is the greatest unsolved problem of our time. Science has not solved it up to this point, but this doesn't mean it cannot do so at some time in the future.
Or do you have a proof that science cannot possibly ever solve it?

...and the fact that one cannot logically derive a "should" from an "is".

What you feel "ought" to be the case is a direct consequence of what "is" in your brain (which is a consequence of genetics and environment). You don't see that "ought" actually "is", because of the sheer complexity of the neural activity in your brain.

Morals are a sort of community consensus between personal "oughts". It is a sort of scientific (;) ) check on our error prone personal subjective feelings about what "ought" to be.

Gurdur

29th March 2007, 05:52 AM

Gurdur,
......
2.) ..... I don't know anyone who is trying to justify or explain the subjective purely through objective means. ....
Apart from my long reply above, RandFan, also see this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2471718#post2471718), which is another glaring example of where skeptigirl tries exactly that --- pretending to have access to an alleged objectivity in morality.

It's fairly damned awful stuff of hers, it amounts to "We can measure arm length so we can have science tell us morals". It really is dreadfully simplistic, incoherent non sequitur stuff of hers.

Gurdur

29th March 2007, 06:06 AM

....However, at the very least there is a connection between the two. The connection is that we must be informed by science about what "is", before we can derive what "ought" to be the case. In other words, at the very least, morals must have a scientific base.
Unfortunately, that's where a fallacy of ambiguity creeps in. There is an empirical basis to talking what to be moral about, and what the likely consequences are of each action, but that still does not add up to the ambiguous sentence of "morals must have a scientific base".

Let's turn it around. We know morals are subjective --- from observation, transhistorically and transculturally. We know all observation is subjective. So you can just as easily claim all science has a subjective basis (which BTW it does, it simply is that in science one tries overcoming that shortcoming by developing intersubjective checking mechanisms.

There's a great deal more to be said here, though this thread is most likely not a good place to attempt a complex investigation of options regarding how to look at morals.
This is a matter of opinion, not fact. Many scientists and philosophers would disagree with your opinion.
Really? Who are the "many" scientists? I would like to know just who the "many scientists" who think science can provide morals are supposed to be.
And I also want to know just who the "many philosophers" are supposed to be. Plantinga? ;)
Or do you have a proof that science cannot possibly ever solve it?
Hume's observation on the illogicality of attempting to derive an "ought" from an "is" is a good enough proof.

It's that simple, that powerful and that far-reaching as an observation.
What you feel "ought" to be the case is a direct consequence of what "is" in your brain
This is what we call only a premise. It's not necessarily proven beyond all doubt, it's merely proven beyond "reasonable" doubt, a rather different set of criteria.
You don't see that "ought" actually "is", because of the sheer complexity of the neural activity in your brain.
No, that's all wrong.
I don't see any "ought" in observing a traffic light is red. I do see an "ought" in considering whether to run it or not.
Morals are a sort of community consensus between personal "oughts".
Not quite. You have left out the important roles of individual conscience and creativity there.

fls

29th March 2007, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by fls
....It looks more like you are moving between ideas of reductionism and holism...

Now this reply of fls' strikes me as mystifiying. To explain more, the original point at hand between fls and myself was if science only uses materialism; materialism as a group of philosophies is a fairly-well defined school, and it is a monist school. Now my sole point to her back, and it was precisely put to her, was that science does not only use materialism and monism, in fact science often uses non-materialist philosophies --- I gave several concrete examples, such as theoretical mathematics here --- and even dualist philosophies, such as used in psychology, clinical medicine or psychiatry. First of all fls objected to me "dragging" in psychology or psychiatry, even though these are sciences. Then when I pointed out to her that these were sciences too, and that she also ignored my other example of theoretical mathematics, she comes back with this.

Now, throwing around buzzwords like "reductionism" and "holism" in response only means in effect ducking the question; the question was whether science is only based on materialism, and the answer is it isn't. Dualism does NOT mean religion; religion can be either monist or dualist, and when science uses philosophies which make a sharp distinction in description between monist physical models and dualist cognitive models, then it is using dualist philosophies, and all dualism means there is a divide in explanatory models -- it does not imply religion in any way. These philosophical strands often have very precise names (e.g. verificationalism, realism, falsificationalism, etc. etc.) and not even using the term "materialism" correctly, and using undefined buzzwords like "holism" instead, indicates to me an ignorance about this whole area, an area which is quite important to science and to humanity (think medical ethics for the huge example, an example to which I will return in just a moment).

The points you are making do not have relevance to what I said (examples - I never said anything about dualism and religion, I did not object to you dragging in psychology and psychiatry (I pointed out that your assumption of non-materialism in these fields was unsupported), the only one using materialism in an undefined manner is you, your concrete examples have already been addressed as non-contributory since you have yet to provide any support for your idea that different levels of organization represent a qualitative difference (as though talking about molecules is monism, but talking about cellular structures is dualism).

I realize the point is not to understand what I am saying, but to disagree with what I am saying. And since your perception of my contribution to the discussion has almost nothing to do with what I actually say (other than giving you something to riff off of) plus I have a busy schedule today, I will make it easy by simply providing you with a word salad in response - a win-win situation.

In geology of liver, racing is concordance about the relationship between rock and paper, which claims that scissors are two separate categories. In particular, necklace dualism claims that neither the kidney nor photons can be reduced to each other in any way, and thus is in agreement to realism in general, and augmentative pluralism in particular.

Linda

Gurdur

29th March 2007, 07:05 AM

The points you are making do not have relevance to what I said
Puh-leeze. They were a direct answer to your question. The relevance was very clear. See this post here for direct relevance (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445342&postcount=505), and I answered you very squarely indeed.
I did not object to you dragging in psychology and psychiatry
Oh puh-leeeze, what do you call "How about instead of dragging psychology/psychiatry into it" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2445502#post2445502) ?
(I pointed out that your assumption of non-materialism in these fields was unsupported)
Oh puh-leeze, exactly where did you "point out" that? Since I gave very concrete examples (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445560&postcount=507), how about you deal with them?
the only one using materialism in an undefined manner is you
Contentless and untrue. Deal with the points.
your concrete examples have already been addressed as non-contributory
You mean you don't like them, so you refuse to deal with them? Not terribly honest.
since you have yet to provide any support for your idea that different levels of organization represent a qualitative difference (as though talking about molecules is monism, but talking about cellular structures is dualism).
What kind of absolute nonsense is this of yours? How many times must it be repeated that talking about medical ethics, just for example, or even only theoretical mathematics, can only be done in a non-materialist way?
Suuuuuuure, you can deny ethics existing in any way from a materialist viewpoint, but that's a circular argument, what, what?
;)
I realize the point is not to understand what I am saying, but to disagree with what I am saying.
Sheeeesh, what is it with the persecution complex and playing the victim card? You refuse to deal with the points so you will whine instead? Very dishonest indeed.

The question is whether you can support your risible claims, not whether you feel persecuted merely because someone dares to disagree with you, or points out your lack of knowledge of science overall.
I will make it easy by simply providing you with a word salad in response - a win-win situation
Yeah, whatever. Now enough of the hysteria bollocks and deal with the points.

Gurdur

29th March 2007, 07:25 AM

The points you are making do not have relevance to what I said
I will also point out that this statement of yours is simply not honest if and only if you are being honest in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445943&postcount=513), since in that post you managed to grasp what I am saying, and you even agreed with it; here are your own words again:
These processes are poorly described/understood by focussing on their elementary composition and a purely materialist description cannot contribute to understanding?
I can agree with that.
The fact that you do not seem to know what the term "materialism" is used for in real science and philosophy is a separate and uninteresting matter; the fact that you try subsuming everything under "materialism" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2445896&postcount=512) is merely a circular argument of yours, one which fails to deal with the point, and that point is, a materialist viewpoint as it is understood and defined commonly within real science and philosophy simply cannot explain things like "intent" --- such things can be denied, but not explained, from a purely materialist POV. The fact that you have tried artificially defining the discussion to suit yourself is only interesting as a good example of special pleading and circular argument.

I realise I may well be spoiling your game by using the terminology as it is actually used in real science and philosophy. Too bad.

fls

29th March 2007, 09:20 AM

Gurdur,

You find something objectionable. You have yet to draw a connection for me between that something and anything I've said. What use is it to you anyway to alter the opinion of a dishonest, ingnorant, hysterical victim?

Linda

Gurdur

29th March 2007, 09:29 AM

Gurdur,
You find something objectionable. You have yet to draw a connection for me between that something and anything I've said.
Now you are being ridiculous again. Since I have answered you at each stage answering your exact words, try again instead of whining at me.
What use is it to you anyway to alter the opinion of a dishonest, ingnorant, hysterical victim?
Linda
*yawn*
First you claim I am only objecting to your statements only for the sake of disagreeing with you.
Here are your words again:
I realize the point is not to understand what I am saying, but to disagree with what I am saying.
That was a dishonest cop-out of yours, and then you came out with that juvenile, bizarre word-salad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2471819&postcount=599) of yours.
Get serious. If you're not prepared to discuss seriously, don't whine when people point out that you are very obviously not prepared to discuss seriously. Come back when you have something real to say.

fls

29th March 2007, 10:30 AM

Delete post

BillyJoe

29th March 2007, 03:02 PM

Unfortunately, that's where a fallacy of ambiguity creeps in. There is an empirical basis to talking what to be moral about, and what the likely consequences are of each action, but that still does not add up to the ambiguous sentence of "morals must have a scientific base".

Perhaps it's ambiguous. It depends on what you/I mean by "base". All I mean is that you can't create morals out of thin air. There must be a factual base from which to work. Science provides the factual base.

Let's turn it around. We know morals are subjective --- from observation, transhistorically and transculturally. We know all observation is subjective. So you can just as easily claim all science has a subjective basis (which BTW it does, it simply is that in science one tries overcoming that shortcoming by developing intersubjective checking mechanisms.

It seems we're at least partly in agreement here.
As you say, there is a subjective base to science AND this is overcome by appropriate checking mechanisms. I said as much in the latter part of my post. And this can extended to the (intuitively derived and hence error prone) morals as well. The intersubjective (or intercultural) checking mechanisms are where science comes in a second time.

I am sure we partly disagree as well, but I'm not sure I'm seeing where.

I would like to know just who the "many scientists" who think science can provide morals are supposed to be....And I also want to know just who the "many philosophers" are supposed to be.

Okay, maybe my fault.
I picked the word "subjectivity" out of your quote ("...science cannot address morals because of the problems of subjectivity") and indicated that many scientist and philosophers believe science can deal with the subjective. In other words that you can objectively deal with the subjective. This has to be correct, doesn't it, if materialism is correct.

Hume's observation on the illogicality of attempting to derive an "ought" from an "is" is a good enough proof.

I will refresh my memory when I get a chance. Of the top of my head, Searl has provided counterexamples, but don't quote me.

This is what we call only a premise [that "What you feel "ought" to be the case is a direct consequence of what "is" in your brain"]. It's not necessarily proven beyond all doubt, it's merely proven beyond "reasonable" doubt, a rather different set of criteria.

Would you agree this is necessarily true if materialism is true?

You don't see that "ought" actually "is", because of the sheer complexity of the neural activity in your brain.
I don't see any "ought" in observing a traffic light is red. I do see an "ought" in considering whether to run it or not.

I'm saying that the "ought" is actually an "is" - the neural activity in your brain (which, according to the materialist perspective, is purely the result of genetics and environment (experience and memory), cause and effect - up to that point in time).

Morals are a sort of community consensus between personal "oughts".
Not quite. You have left out the important roles of individual conscience and creativity there.

Yes, the intuitive, error-prone subjective thoughts, that must be subjected (sorry!) to the "intersubjective checking mechanisms" that science has provided.
But I'm possibly missing your point.

Moochie

29th March 2007, 03:44 PM

---> RandFan and everyone else: long reply ahead

<snip>

Oh, you do go on, old boy. On, and on, and on.

I'm tired just thinking about how you go on, and on, and...

M.

P.S. I'd love to see you explaining god to a bunch of first-graders sometime. :D

cgallaga

29th March 2007, 05:51 PM

Perhaps it's ambiguous. It depends on what you/I mean by "base". All I mean is that you can't create morals out of thin air. There must be a factual base from which to work. Science provides the factual base.

Far from the beaten path this but...

I find this interesting, could you elaborate?

From my layman understanding: Science (various fields) can offer hypothesis for why we A. Act in certain ways. B. Value those actions over others deemed unfavorable (im/moral actions). But isn't that just codifying, much like a librarian or a historian, rather than actually proving what is and is not objectively moral behavior?

So Science can suppose, that the bonobo developed its sexual promiscuity as a way of maintaining harmony, It can say they have developed a system of what appears to be compassion for their sick or injured, but it can not label what is moral or not in any objective sense. Rather what actions (moral or not) may have produced what benefits. No?

And for the record, and for history sake. I do not agree with Gurdur's lambasting the many contributors here as being dishonest. I now regret my use of the same term on SkeptiGirl as it may easily be seen in a similar light. I'll take her word (what else do we have on a discussion forum) that she didn't mean to misconstrue, and offer an apology if I misunderstood her intentions. I suggest that in future, a more careful reading of the post one wishes to rebut could reduce the amount of times one appears to misunderstand someone else.

Skeptic Ginger

29th March 2007, 07:31 PM

Cgallaga, that is encouraging. I am glad to hear someone actually considering this fad of calling people dishonest is not constructive.

And you are almost there... Yes, I may have misread something you wrote. When reading posts quickly it is easy to miss a word or two which can change the meaning considerably. BUT, the person who wrote the post can also make the false assumption there is only one way to interpret something. And that can be the reason something is misunderstood as well.

Who cares whose fault it is? And why is someone insulted by being misread anyway? Just clarify what you said and move on. Then the discussion continues instead of a, "screw you", "no you screw you" exchange.

For example, I have clarified what I said about 5 times now and I'm still being misunderstood. However, I persevere.

Cgallaga said, "But isn't that just codifying, much like a librarian or a historian, rather than actually proving what is and is not objectively moral behavior?"

Yes and no. If you had to explain what went in to your thought process when you determined what was objectively moral behavior in your view, (knowing there is no single view of morality), what would you say?

Hypothetically, you might say you believe hurting innocent people is wrong. That is criteria you have established as a belief. Exploring your brain function, upbringing, genetics, and socio-cultural evolution of the society you live in we could determine the underlying mechanisms for your belief. In other words, what factors predict which moral decisions you are likely to make? That might be one avenue the scientific process could address morality. You might increase your understanding the mechanisms which lead to morality beliefs, but it would not do much for determining what was objectively moral.

However, if I wanted to determine if behavior A was moral, just as I would do if I wanted to determine if behavior A was healthy, I apply the belief I have about morality or health. I believe hurting innocent people is not moral. I believe quality of life is more important than longevity. I execute behavior A and measure the outcome using the criteria I established using my belief about morality or health. If behavior A hurts innocent people, I will have determined it is immoral by my criteria. If behavior A results in my having a better quality of life but I don't live longer, then I will have determined behavior A is healthy by my criteria.

It isn't that the latter study of morality is particularly useful. I believe the study looking at factors which predict morality beliefs is more useful than evaluating behavior A for its objective morality measure. While the latter study of the health outcome of behavior A is probably more useful than looking at why I value quality of life over longevity. A survey of health beliefs in a population before choosing an outcome to measure in a study of a particular health behavior so you are measuring the outcome most relevant to the population you might recommend behavior A to makes more sense there.

The key point here is not that science is particularly useful determining whether or not something is morally right or wrong. Once I have those beliefs, it doesn't take much research to apply them to behaviors I observe. The key point is I could use the scientific process to address morality the same way I use it to measure a health outcome I assigned a value to for the purpose of a study. A moral value and a beauty value and a measure of health are all analogous. The idea morality values are qualitatively different from health values is false. Morality values feel different because we have leftover emotional ties to the concept of a soul and the concept humans are not animals.

When we assign a value to a measure of health, no one gives it a second thought. Survey says, people prefer quality of life over quantity of life. Fine, pick some outcomes that measure quality of life. Survey says people believe preserving brain function is more valued than preserving mobility. We now decide to measure brain function with and without health intervention X. Did anyone question our "objective health measure"? Did anyone say we couldn't use the scientific process to measure health objectively? Could I create a survey of moral preferences the same way I created one with health preferences? Is there really a difference in the basic elements of these things being described here?

Slimething

29th March 2007, 08:50 PM

The key point here is not that science is particularly useful determining whether or not something is morally right or wrong. Once I have those beliefs, it doesn't take much research to apply them to behaviors I observe. The key point is I could use the scientific process to address morality the same way I use it to measure a health outcome I assigned a value to for the purpose of a study. A moral value and a beauty value and a measure of health are all analogous. The idea morality values are qualitatively different from health values is false. Morality values feel different because we have leftover emotional ties to the concept of a soul and the concept humans are not animals.

SG, I think you've hit it on the head. This is where some make a critical logic mistake. Science is what measures and is at the foundation of all branches of science. The application of scientific principles sometimes involves indeterminate criteria but science itself never does. Science only comes about by the use or the scientific method so, by definition, science is prohibited from testing with unmeasurable phenomena.

Skeptic Ginger

30th March 2007, 03:29 AM

Hooray, someone understands me. :D

BillyJoe

30th March 2007, 05:32 AM

From my layman understanding: Science (various fields) can offer hypothesis for why we A. Act in certain ways. B. Value those actions over others deemed unfavorable (im/moral actions). But isn't that just codifying, much like a librarian or a historian, rather than actually proving what is and is not objectively moral behavior?

I am also a layman. :)
I think what you are saying, perhaps without realising it, is that morals are subjective phenomena, which is why it is not possible to study them scientifically. I agree that morals are subjective phenomena but not that they are not able to be studied scientifically. At least in principle. I am saying that, if materialism is true, there must be a pattern of neural activity in the brain that IS the morals. One day we may be able to reach in there and find those morals/pattern of neural activity. If we were ever able to trace the genetic and environmental causes of that pattern of neural activity we would have a complete scientific explanation of those morals. This must be true if materialism is true.
Or so is my layman's understanding.

Skeptic Ginger

30th March 2007, 01:22 PM

I am also a layman. :)
I think what you are saying, perhaps without realising it, is that morals are subjective phenomena, which is why it is not possible to study them scientifically. I agree that morals are subjective phenomena but not that they are not able to be studied scientifically. At least in principle. I am saying that, if materialism is true, there must be a pattern of neural activity in the brain that IS the morals. One day we may be able to reach in there and find those morals/pattern of neural activity. If we were ever able to trace the genetic and environmental causes of that pattern of neural activity we would have a complete scientific explanation of those morals. This must be true if materialism is true.
Or so is my layman's understanding.So you are unable to articulate on what basis you might find murder immoral? How about, it harms other people for xyz reasons and only abc reasons are moral reasons for murder? Identify the xyz and abc and you have your criteria.

You are making the same mistake as many people reading what I'm saying. I am not saying science is going to determine which basis you choose to judge morality by. What I am saying is we do the same thing when we decide to look at other things besides morals and no one questions those decisions.

Please just read my post above this one. Clear your head of the assumptions you are making about what I am saying. You are making incorrect assumptions.

cgallaga

30th March 2007, 06:52 PM

cgallaga

30th March 2007, 07:32 PM

So you are unable to articulate on what basis you might find murder immoral? How about, it harms other people for xyz reasons and only abc reasons are moral reasons for murder? Identify the xyz and abc and you have your criteria.

You are making the same mistake as many people reading what I'm saying. I am not saying science is going to determine which basis you choose to judge morality by. What I am saying is we do the same thing when we decide to look at other things besides morals and no one questions those decisions.

Please just read my post above this one. Clear your head of the assumptions you are making about what I am saying. You are making incorrect assumptions.

I think there may be a blurry line here between science: the tools for developing knowledge; and Technology: tools often made through science for measuring effects after the fact.

Skeptic Ginger

31st March 2007, 01:18 AM

There's only a blurred line because people haven't carefully read what I posted, or are reading it with established beliefs that are interfering with their understanding. I'll come back to your other statement on whether I am just not explaining myself well here.

Does weighing my dogs tell me if they need a bath? No, because the criteria needed to determine if they need a bath is not weight, it is smell (among other measures).

Can science tell me my dogs need a bath? Did science tell me to weigh them? Did it tell me to measure their smell? Can science tell me that they need a bath?

Only after I identify what I need to measure, can I measure it. How did I decide smell was an indicator my dogs need a bath? It is unpleasant.

Would you feel unpleasant torturing a kitten? Most people would. So what is stopping you from using that unpleasant feeling to draw a conclusion it is 'wrong' to torture kittens? Do you need a philosopher to tell you it is 'wrong'? If a philosopher was to tell you it was 'wrong', what would they base that conclusion on? It is unpleasant to torture kittens, (or any number of other identifiable reasons).

The point I am making is, there is nothing unique or special about a moral value over any other value. It is a value the same as I value not smelling stinky dogs. I make no claim science has an inherent knowledge of my values.

If I determine torturing animals is wrong, then I can look at my lab procedures (hypothetical, I don't experiment on animals) and place electrodes on the animals' heads. If I see a pattern indicating something I am doing causes pain centers in their brain to fire, I have just used the scientific process to determine if my research procedure is 'wrong' ie immoral.

So deciding to use pain as a measure of 'wrong' and deciding to use smell as a measure of dog needs bath were made by me, not by "science". But by the same token, my decision about what to measure was the same in both cases. I had an unpleasant reaction to the smelly dog and an unpleasant reaction to the thought of torturing kittens. And the process of measuring the criteria to determine the outcome is science in both examples.

I don't see that as a blurry line about tools. It is about identifying what to measure.

-

As to the comments about misunderstanding, I said that to you after you claimed I was dishonest and misinterpreted your post willfully. When you apologized for falsely claiming I was dishonest, you added that I must have misinterpreted your post by honest mistake. So I commented that either party could be the basis of the misinterpretation. Points are not always articulated as well as the person posting believes.

In these two threads where I have labored to get my point across, you don't see me claiming anyone misread my posts on purpose or that they were dishonest. And I have repeated and restated my point more than a few times here because it is a controversial concept for people who are pre-convinced moral values differ from other values. After giving example after example, there is a point where some people get it and some don't. But Billyjoe's post was so far off the mark, I felt he had not carefully read what I posted. I'd even wager he might have said what he did without even looking at what I posted. He just gave his opinion about science and morals. That is why I asked him to re-read my post and suspend his assumptions for the moment. If I thought another attempt at explaining would help, then you would see another attempt. All you have to do is read this post to see that.

cgallaga

31st March 2007, 01:58 AM

Does weighing my dogs tell me if they need a bath? No, because the criteria needed to determine if they need a bath is not weight, it is smell (among other measures).

Well it is not actually a measure of the dog needing a bath it is a measure of your tolerance for a particular smell.

Would you feel unpleasant torturing a kitten? Most people would. So what is stopping you from using that unpleasant feeling to draw a conclusion it is 'wrong' to torture kittens? Do you need a philosopher to tell you it is 'wrong'? If a philosopher was to tell you it was 'wrong', what would they base that conclusion on? It is unpleasant to torture kittens, (or any number of other identifiable reasons).

<snip>

If I determine torturing animals is wrong, then I can look at my lab procedures (hypothetical, I don't experiment on animals) and place electrodes on the animals' heads. If I see a pattern indicating something I am doing causes pain centers in their brain to fire, I have just used the scientific process to determine if my research procedure is 'wrong' ie immoral.

So then what is deemed Im/Moral is subjective and possibly democratic, but not scientific. So science can't determine morals, though in your example it can measure activity against the determination.

As to the comments about misunderstanding, I said that to you after you claimed I was dishonest and misinterpreted your post willfully. When you apologized for falsely claiming I was dishonest, you added that I must have misinterpreted your post by honest mistake. So I commented that either party could be the basis of the misinterpretation. Points are not always articulated as well as the person posting believes.

There you go again, giving me reason to wonder...first I did not say the bold above you attribute to me and I defy you to find where I did say that or even something reasonably close.

But Billyjoe's post was so far off the mark, I felt he had not carefully read what I posted. I'd even wager he might have said what he did without even looking at what I posted. He just gave his opinion about science and morals. That is why I asked him to re-read my post and suspend his assumptions for the moment. If I thought another attempt at explaining would help, then you would see another attempt. All you have to do is read this post to see that.

And all you would have to do is read the post to see the Billyjoe was NOT responding to you, he was replying (as is amply evidenced by whom he quoted) to me.

BillyJoe

31st March 2007, 04:07 AM

Billyjoe's post was so far off the mark, I felt he had not carefully read what I posted.

What the...:confused:

And all you would have to do is read the post to see the Billyjoe was NOT responding to you, he was replying (as is amply evidenced by whom he quoted) to me.

He is right you know. :cool:

I'd even wager he might have said what he did without even looking at what I posted.

Correct. :D

BillyJoe

31st March 2007, 07:22 PM

So you are unable to articulate on what basis you might find murder immoral? How about, it harms other people for xyz reasons and only abc reasons are moral reasons for murder? Identify the xyz and abc and you have your criteria.

Yes, I can think of reasons/situations where I would say that murder is unjustified, and other reasons/situations where I would find that murder is justified. They are my reasons, but they may not be your reasons. That's what I mean when I say that morals are subjective.

I am not saying science is going to determine which basis you choose to judge morality by.

I am saying that, in principle, science could determine the basis you choose to judge morality by. "Morals" = "neural patterns". Just look inside the brain and see. Of course we cannot do this at the present time. But, in principle, this must be so if materialism is true.

What I am saying is we do the same thing when we decide to look at other things besides morals and no one questions those decisions.

You are talking about what it is possible to do now. I don't disagree. But I am saying that it is not thereby possible to derive a set of morals that are objectively true. We are talking about different things.

Please just read my post above this one.

I have now read it. :)

BillyJoe

31st March 2007, 08:19 PM

Your post confuses me but that may be a deficiency on my part.

If you had to explain what went in to your thought process when you determined what was objectively moral behavior in your view, (knowing there is no single view of morality), what would you say?

How is this not an oxymoron?
Either it is moral in your view (subjectively moral), or it is objectively moral. It cannot be objectively moral in your view.
And when you say that there is no single view of morality, you seem to be agreeing that morals are subjective.

Hypothetically, you might say you believe hurting innocent people is wrong. That is criteria you have established as a belief. Exploring your brain function, upbringing, genetics, and socio-cultural evolution of the society you live in we could determine the underlying mechanisms for your belief. In other words, what factors predict which moral decisions you are likely to make? That might be one avenue the scientific process could address morality. You might increase your understanding the mechanisms which lead to morality beliefs, but it would not do much for determining what was objectively moral.

Are you saying that science can (objectively) investigate subjective phenomena. If so, you have given one way - the well established way. I have given another way - looking inside the brain (which has started, but has a long way to go).

However, if I wanted to determine if behavior A was moral...

Do you mean objectively moral?
But here is how you determine this...

...I apply the belief I have about morality.....I believe....I believe....using my belief about morality....I will have determined it is immoral by my criteria.

It seems to me that you are obtaining evidence to determine if the reasons for your subjective view of morality are true. You are not obtaining evidence to determine if your subjective view of morality is true.
Is that correct?

The key point here is not that science is particularly useful determining whether or not something is morally right or wrong. Once I have those beliefs, it doesn't take much research to apply them to behaviors I observe.

Okay, you are not talking about morals, but about beliefs about morals.
I think this confirms what I said above?

When we assign a value to a measure of health, no one gives it a second thought. Survey says, people prefer quality of life over quantity of life. Fine, pick some outcomes that measure quality of life. Survey says people believe preserving brain function is more valued than preserving mobility. We now decide to measure brain function with and without health intervention X. Did anyone question our "objective health measure"? Did anyone say we couldn't use the scientific process to measure health objectively? Could I create a survey of moral preferences the same way I created one with health preferences? Is there really a difference in the basic elements of these things being described here?

When you say "objective health measure", you are referring to "people believe preserving brain function is more valued than preserving mobility" and this is objective because you have done a survey and this is the result of the survey (assuming no methodological errors, of course). You are NOT referring to "brain function is more valued than preserving mobility" as being objectively true.
If so, we agree.

regards,
BillyJoe

Skeptic Ginger

1st April 2007, 12:10 AM

Well it is not actually a measure of the dog needing a bath it is a measure of your tolerance for a particular smell.So, can science tell me my dog needs a bath?

So then what is deemed Im/Moral is subjective and possibly democratic, but not scientific. So science can't determine morals, though in your example it can measure activity against the determination. Science can determine what/why/how I will decide what is moral by studying the brain and psycho-socio-cultural evolution and influences on my moral choices. Science can survey the population to evaluate/describe the morals of a culture. Science can determine if an action is moral or not by the criteria chosen to measure it by.

There is no absolute measure of morality like there is an absolute measure of heat. But in the sciences such as psychology, biology, archeology, and sociology, there are also few absolute measures if any. These are still sciences.

There you go again, giving me reason to wonder...first I did not say the bold above you attribute to me and I defy you to find where I did say that or even something reasonably close.
OK, you said...I do not agree with Gurdur's lambasting the many contributors here as being dishonest. I now regret my use of the same term on SkeptiGirl as it may easily be seen in a similar light. I'll take her word (what else do we have on a discussion forum) that she didn't mean to misconstrue, and offer an apology if I misunderstood her intentions. I suggest that in future, a more careful reading of the post one wishes to rebut could reduce the amount of times one appears to misunderstand someone else.Does this not say I misunderstood and does it allow not for the possibility you did not articulate your meaning well?

And all you would have to do is read the post to see the Billyjoe was NOT responding to you, he was replying (as is amply evidenced by whom he quoted) to me.Regardless of who he quoted, the reply still ignored all of what I have been saying. Sometimes there are side discussions. When someone posts something contradictory to pages of posts where one is trying to get a single concept understood, I know of no rule that says the post only applies to the person quoted.

However, I see BillyJ has replied that he indeed had not considered anything I have been saying. So I still ask him to read my posts. And I still ask him to set his beliefs aside while doing so since those pre-convictions tend to distort one's perceptions.

Skeptic Ginger

1st April 2007, 12:22 AM

Yes, I can think of reasons/situations where I would say that murder is unjustified, and other reasons/situations where I would find that murder is justified. They are my reasons, but they may not be your reasons. That's what I mean when I say that morals are subjective.

I am saying that, in principle, science could determine the basis you choose to judge morality by. "Morals" = "neural patterns". Just look inside the brain and see. Of course we cannot do this at the present time. But, in principle, this must be so if materialism is true.

You are talking about what it is possible to do now. I don't disagree. But I am saying that it is not thereby possible to derive a set of morals that are objectively true. We are talking about different things.

I have now read it. :)Thank you for reading it.

Since when is science excluded from looking at anything individual or subjective? (Hint, take a look at a very large portion of the medical research.)

I do think the research into brain function is examining moral decisions currently. Psychiatry is somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately in the evidence based medicine realm.

Here are 2 reports on the same study:

Certain Types of Brain Damage Can Improve Utilitarian Moral Judgments, Research Shows (http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12958.html)

Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05631.html)

Skeptic Ginger

1st April 2007, 12:54 AM

Your post confuses me but that may be a deficiency on my part.

How is this not an oxymoron?
Either it is moral in your view (subjectively moral), or it is objectively moral. It cannot be objectively moral in your view.
And when you say that there is no single view of morality, you seem to be agreeing that morals are subjective.

Are you saying that science can (objectively) investigate subjective phenomena. If so, you have given one way - the well established way. I have given another way - looking inside the brain (which has started, but has a long way to go).

Do you mean objectively moral?
But here is how you determine this...

It seems to me that you are obtaining evidence to determine if the reasons for your subjective view of morality are true. You are not obtaining evidence to determine if your subjective view of morality is true.
Is that correct?

Okay, you are not talking about morals, but about beliefs about morals.
I think this confirms what I said above?

When you say "objective health measure", you are referring to "people believe preserving brain function is more valued than preserving mobility" and this is objective because you have done a survey and this is the result of the survey (assuming no methodological errors, of course). You are NOT referring to "brain function is more valued than preserving mobility" as being objectively true.
If so, we agree.

regards,
BillyJoeWe do agree on objective and subjective measures.

Subjective measures are often studied in science. And sometimes people cannot see something right in front of them.

I am pointing out something which is right in front of people but which many of them cannot see.

Instead of discussing the more accurate description that science deals with subjective and objective measures differently, we have claims that science cannot determine morality. Sometimes the same is said about beauty and love.

We hear no similar statement that the scientific process cannot be used to evaluate pain. Yet the subjective experience of pain is highly individualized and cannot be perfectly correlated with the physical mechanisms. I could list a thousand subjective things one doesn't hear the claim science cannot determine [fill in the blank].

This statement, "science cannot determine", was applied to beauty until researchers began to study what criteria the brain was using to evaluate beauty by. It seems there are a number of objective criteria one can use to measure beauty. Those criteria are somewhat individualized and can differ between cultures, genders and ages.

The point I am making is right in front of people. If someone knowledgeable about the scientific process stops to think about what I am saying, it is actually quite obvious. Because one usually recognizes that science deals with subjective measures all the time. We study how they come to be, what they are, and we evaluate other things by the subjective measures when the outcome is useful to know.

Consider the questions, "Why do people believe weird things?", "What weird things do people believe?", and "Did the intervention impact the weird beliefs in the group studied? Now substitute the questions, "Why do people have certain moral values?", "What moral values do people have?", and "Did the intervention impact the moral values in the group studied?"

So why do we then single out such concepts as morality or beauty or love and make statements such as, "science cannot determine morality"? Why are we not merely saying, "morality is a subjective concept so we must identify the criteria we will use to measure it if we wish to study it"?

cgallaga

1st April 2007, 01:27 AM

So, can science tell me my dog needs a bath?

No.

When you apologized for falsely claiming I was dishonest, you added that I must have misinterpreted your post by honest mistake.

Is not nearly the same in word or meaning as:

And for the record, and for history sake. I do not agree with Gurdur's lambasting the many contributors here as being dishonest. I now regret my use of the same term on SkeptiGirl as it may easily be seen in a similar light. I'll take her word (what else do we have on a discussion forum) that she didn't mean to misconstrue, and offer an apology if I misunderstood her intentions. I suggest that in future, a more careful reading of the post one wishes to rebut could reduce the amount of times one appears to misunderstand someone else.

S
Does this not say I misunderstood and does it allow not for the possibility you did not articulate your meaning well?

Not even close. It says you claim you simply misunderstood, and I am going to accept your claim without evidence. It also says that I apologize if (in the event that it proves) I ahve misunderstood your intentions. The jury on that remains out.

But this applies:

If EVERYONE in a particular thread is misunderstanding my post, then yes it would be reasonable for me to assume I need to do a better job of explaining.

If ONE individual is constantly misreading, then it is reasonable to assume that the problem is largely in their reading.

The fault and perceived insult matters when and because:

If an individual (as the one above) also distorts my words when making rebuttal, often using new words (paraphrasing) rather than just quoting me directly and correctly; and in so doing changes the original meaning into a different one which they then attack, I believe it is reasonable to assume they are intentionally doing so, they are creating a straw man, and if I assume they are intelligent I can assume they know what they are doing.

If a person intentionally creates straw men, then they are practicing a dishonest form of debate. If that happens numerous times I am inclined to think the person is habitually dishonest and discussion with that person is not going to be fruitful.

So it may not be constructive to conversation, but it can be useful in reducing the amount of time one wastes.

Of course aside from blatant dishonesty, I suppose a person who constantly misreads and misrepresents the words of others in a public forum could just be incompetent or insensitive, or even possibly naturally terrible at communicating or all three...heck even all four. But it would seem to me highly unreasonable and unlikely that the constant repetitive mistakes of one individual should be attributed to the failure of anyone else. So, I am inclined (by the fact that I have this frequent problem with you alone) to believe that the cause is yours.

BillyJoe

1st April 2007, 01:39 AM

Since when is science excluded from looking at anything individual or subjective?

But there are some who insist that science cannot make any inroads into the quality of subjective experience. The so called "qualia". For example, how could science possibly explain our experience of the colour green.
So it depends on what you mean by "subjective".

I do think the research into brain function is examining moral decisions currently. Psychiatry is somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately in the evidence based medicine realm.

Here are 2 reports on the same study:

Certain Types of Brain Damage Can Improve Utilitarian Moral Judgments, Research Shows (http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12958.html)

Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05631.html)

I was thinking more along the lines of being able to determine, from neural patterns in the brain, what the person's tastes/morals are. A start has also been made along those lines.

BillyJoe

1st April 2007, 01:47 AM

Consider the questions, "Why do people believe weird things?", "What weird things do people believe?", and "Did the intervention impact the weird beliefs in the group studied? Now substitute the questions, "Why do people have certain moral values?", "What moral values do people have?", and "Did the intervention impact the moral values in the group studied?"

So why do we then single out such concepts as morality or beauty or love and make statements such as, "science cannot determine morality"? Why are we not merely saying, "morality is a subjective concept so we must identify the criteria we will use to measure it if we wish to study it"?

Okay, as long as you are not talking about objective morals but about objective beliefs about subjective morals, I am fine with that.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd April 2007, 01:56 AM

But there are some who insist that science cannot make any inroads into the quality of subjective experience. The so called "qualia". For example, how could science possibly explain our experience of the colour green.
So it depends on what you mean by "subjective".

I was thinking more along the lines of being able to determine, from neural patterns in the brain, what the person's tastes/morals are. A start has also been made along those lines.It is possible there is something randomly assigned to the conscious perception of color so that were you in my head those assigned colors might be mixed up, but I think it's more likely the same genetics and brain structure give us the same sensations of colors. OTOH, everything gets filtered and processed on the way into the brain so that none of us perceive things exactly the same.

Cgallaga has drawn an incorrect conclusion that what a person writes has only one interpretation the majority of the time. Thus the claim if one doesn't read exactly what the person writing intended then the reader would be incompetent, insensitive or dishonest (as if we should all be so clever). It leaves out the most common reason people misunderstand posts, we perceive the post through our unique filter. You would have to be a mind reader to perceive posts from the point of view of the person writing the post.

But I digress.

So there is that concept of not knowing some things about what a person feels. However, when people took a similar fallacy about the perception of beauty, the fallacy being each brain has a perception of beauty which differs like fingerprints from person to person, and began to identify the features of things which people found universally beautiful, it turned out there were some universal components of beauty like a symmetrical face, and some cultural ones like body hair and weight. The universal components made up the bulk of the features. Paintings and other art work had similar universal markers which predicted appeal. In other words inroads were made.

Regarding your second thought, that's one I haven't heard any research about. You can identify some things such as when certain areas of the brain are associated with thoughts of certain things. But I think getting down to single thoughts is not going to happen any time soon if at all. What 'start' were you referring to?

Skeptic Ginger

2nd April 2007, 02:02 AM

Cgallaga, we have different beliefs about how posts are interpreted. I do not hold your belief that communication between any two people is as clear as you imply. It is naturally unclear. In fact, I think it is quite common for everyone to misread posts. You don't need to get angry about it. Just restate your point. If it bothers you people misunderstand you, you'll just have to be bothered. I am not a mind reader.

And for the record, I am honest, sensitive and intelligent. I believe people will know that by my posts and not by your conclusions. All the name calling does is waste everyone's time.

cgallaga

2nd April 2007, 02:13 AM

And all your misunderstanding, and rewording to get distorted meanings is a time expedient? Please.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd April 2007, 04:42 AM

And here you are distorting my post. My my. Now why would that be cgallaga?

So do you have a magic mindreader that lets you know exactly what everyone means in every post? Do you have a dictionary that chooses which definition was intended for all words with more than one meaning? Does your computer have a mentally controlled comma key that inserts commas in sentences with multiple clauses to avoid a misread sentence? And of course you would also need a self correcting computer that cleared up ambiguity where ever it might be found.

But since I have none of those, and since I have a normal brain, clarifications are unavoidable.

But what I really don't get is why there are people who see things the way you do, that not getting what the person intended is somehow insulting the person whose post wasn't understood.

That remains a mystery.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd April 2007, 04:46 AM

cgallaga

2nd April 2007, 04:51 AM

"rewording to get distorted meaning"

Yep, there you go again with the paranoia that people are purposefully distorting what you said. It's clear that you haven't let go of that false belief people (this person anyway, I assume I am not the only one you accuse of this) are out to get you. You made an attempt, but you just couldn't let it go.

Not paranoid and not about people. I do have significant and growing evidence that you have a real problem though.

I did make an attemept and you just couldn't start acting reasonably.

You assume a lot (the evidence of your constant misrepresentation of others suggest far more than is reasonable) and offer little. I was through with you before, still am.

cgallaga

2nd April 2007, 05:05 AM

And here you are distorting my post. My my. Now why would that be cgallaga? I did? Evidence? No just BS.

So do you have a magic mindreader that lets you know exactly what everyone means in every post? Do you have a dictionary that chooses which definition was intended for all words with more than one meaning? Does your computer have a mentally controlled comma key that inserts commas in sentences with multiple clauses to avoid a misread sentence? And of course you would also need a self correcting computer that cleared up ambiguity where ever it might be found.

Yeah it is called patience to read and reread what people actually write. A clear understanding of basic English. A functioning brain. And an ability to use quotes rather than the much more difficult ability of manipulating words to change meaning. See there are these quote buttons and when you want to include what someone actually said rather than risk making a caricature, you use them, they are inerrant.

But since I have none of those, and since I have a normal brain, clarifications are unavoidable.

I'm skeptical.

But what I really don't get is why there are people who see things the way you do, that not getting what the person intended is somehow insulting the person whose post wasn't understood.

There is a galaxy of difference between: Beth, FLS, Billyjoe, Gurder, or really, honestly, anyone else who has engaged me in discussion on this board; who may have misunderstood my meaning, but never resorted to making up words to put in my mouth, and when called on it tried to label the complainant as the one with a problem.

So far only you, on this board have done such, with me and many others. Heck you just jumped on Billyjoel for replying to me...you need to get a grip girl.

It is not insulting if someone misunderstands but when they constantly make up what was said. That is just bad fiction. You are quite adept at it, really. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck quacks like a duck...because you A. fail to improve your record, and B. attack those who find it unappealing, I must again consider that you may well be dishonest. Certainly you are not worth this much attention.

BillyJoe

2nd April 2007, 05:55 AM

It is possible there is something randomly assigned to the conscious perception of color so that were you in my head those assigned colors might be mixed up, but I think it's more likely the same genetics and brain structure give us the same sensations of colors. OTOH, everything gets filtered and processed on the way into the brain so that none of us perceive things exactly the same.

I am not talking about my perception of green compared with your perception of green. I'm talking about the perception of green itself.

For a start, where is the color green? Grass is not actually green. Grass reflects certain wavelengths of light which enter your eyes and stimulate receptors in your retina. No green yet. This causes stimulation of nerves. Still no green. This nerve impulses are transmitted to the cerebral cortex. Still no green? But then where is the colour green? You won't find it in the brain no matter how hard you look. Its all dark inside and, even if you shine a little light in there, all the colour you'll see is white and grey. So where or what is this colour green?

However, when people took a similar fallacy about the perception of beauty, the fallacy being each brain has a perception of beauty which differs like fingerprints from person to person, and began to identify the features of things which people found universally beautiful, it turned out there were some universal components of beauty like a symmetrical face, and some cultural ones like body hair and weight. The universal components made up the bulk of the features. Paintings and other art work had similar universal markers which predicted appeal. In other words inroads were made.

I would challenge the us of the word "universal". There will always be some people who do not fit the "universal" mode. So it all comes back to subjective again.

Regarding your second thought, that's one I haven't heard any research about. You can identify some things such as when certain areas of the brain are associated with thoughts of certain things. But I think getting down to single thoughts is not going to happen any time soon if at all. What 'start' were you referring to

Using functional MRI scans, scientists are able to predict the behaviour of experimental subjects by examining the areas of the brain that become active in certain situations. Yeah, only a start.

Gurdur

2nd April 2007, 02:40 PM

There is a galaxy of difference between: Beth, FLS, Billyjoe, Gurder, or really, honestly, anyone else who has engaged me in discussion on this board; who may have misunderstood my meaning, but never resorted to making up words to put in my mouth, and when called on it tried to label the complainant as the one with a problem.
I will admit to being short-tempered on this thread, but I plead provocation, and I am also willing to acknowledge my mistakes, as when I apologised to BillyJoe.

I'm kind of unwilling any more to put up with the arrogant conceit some here have, to the effect that they "know" everything, whereas it's obvious they don't have the slightest clue about the most elementary logic, nor do they have the slightest clue why being a medical ethicist is a separate profession and involves a great deal of training. It all is part of a problem that badly affects skeptic and atheist boards in general; the addiction to pseudo-rationalism, simplistic beyond parody, and the addiction to using skepticism or atheism to trumpet one's ego, rather than actually pushing for the truth consequentially.

I first met skeptigirl when she was jumping all over some poor newbie who had only wandered in to ask a very innocent question about topical effects of medication; I've never regained any respect for her since then, everything after that has only confirmed my impressions.

Where she part of any clinical team I was part of, I would make bloody sure she was limited to a lab tech role if at all allowed on the team, since her whole attitude is the kind of attitude that in direct patient care or differential diagnosis would be totally counter-productive, time-wasting and even lethal at times.
So far only you, on this board have done such, with me and many others. Heck you just jumped on Billyjoel for replying to me...you need to get a grip girl. .... I must again consider that you may well be dishonest. Certainly you are not worth this much attention.
Well, maybe I had a point after all. Call me short-tempered but prescient.

cgallaga

2nd April 2007, 06:53 PM

Well, maybe I had a point after all. Call me short-tempered but prescient.

Well, maybe :) I just felt that in your last few posts that you were throwing the label on everyone, and then it starts to become meaningless.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd April 2007, 07:50 PM

I am not talking about my perception of green compared with your perception of green. I'm talking about the perception of green itself.

For a start, where is the color green? Grass is not actually green. Grass reflects certain wavelengths of light which enter your eyes and stimulate receptors in your retina. No green yet. This causes stimulation of nerves. Still no green. This nerve impulses are transmitted to the cerebral cortex. Still no green? But then where is the colour green? You won't find it in the brain no matter how hard you look. Its all dark inside and, even if you shine a little light in there, all the colour you'll see is white and grey. So where or what is this colour green?

I would challenge the us of the word "universal". There will always be some people who do not fit the "universal" mode. So it all comes back to subjective again.

Using functional MRI scans, scientists are able to predict the behaviour of experimental subjects by examining the areas of the brain that become active in certain situations. Yeah, only a start.I think you could spend a long time contemplating green. I'm content that the nerves in my body can distinguish different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum and different decibels and frequencies of sound waves. We have a pretty good idea how nerve receptors do that and how they transmit the information to the brain and how the brain perceives the information and stores it.

When I say universal, it refers to things which are consistent across cultures. Smiles are universal for instance. You can show anyone in any culture a picture of a smiling person and they will know what they are looking at. Some studies have found universal characteristics of attractiveness. There are many things which appear to be human traits rather than cultural.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd April 2007, 07:51 PM

I see no reason for your crap cgallaga. I suggest you put me on ignore.

BillyJoe

3rd April 2007, 05:39 AM

I think you could spend a long time contemplating green. I'm content that the nerves in my body can distinguish different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum and different decibels and frequencies of sound waves. We have a pretty good idea how nerve receptors do that and how they transmit the information to the brain and how the brain perceives the information and stores it.

You are not interested in the so called "hard problem"?
How you actually experience green.
It's one of the two great mysteries.

When I say universal, it refers to things which are consistent across cultures. Smiles are universal for instance. You can show anyone in any culture a picture of a smiling person and they will know what they are looking at. Some studies have found universal characteristics of attractiveness. There are many things which appear to be human traits rather than cultural.

Well, you could be right.
I wonder what an alien would say.
More seriously...
The same smile can mean different things to different people. A smile delivered during the course of a well-honed argument raises an appreciative smile in a similarly minded colleague, but an uncomfortable squirm in the opponent in the debate. These individuals have quite different interpretations of the same smile.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd April 2007, 05:05 PM

articulett

3rd April 2007, 05:31 PM

If you smile at a baby, they smile back. Just because there are culturally modified smiles doesn't mean we don't have a genetically determined facial muscle reflex called a smile.

Contemplating the Universe is one of my past times but contemplating whether you perceive green the same way I do is low on the list. I do often contemplate however, just what is the world and what is this conscious thing and is the world just in my mind? Kind of the Matrix thing.

to me the "perception of color" game or the notion of the "hard problem" (and the Turing machine) are examples used by philosophers and theists to support the idea that their consciousness will survive their death. It's an illusion produced by the frontal lobes and the language centers of the brain. We can think ahead...and we feel like we are more than our brains.

Nevertheless, people get testy if you mess with their pet beliefs. It's a defense mechanism more than anything else, I guess. I don't see what can be learned or gained or utilized in pondering such "maybes". Like you, I'd much rather focus on what we can know--not what we cannot know.

Gurdur

3rd April 2007, 11:44 PM

to me the "perception of color" game or the notion of the "hard problem" (and the Turing machine) are examples used by philosophers and theists to support the idea that their consciousness will survive their death.
That only shows your woeful ignorance about "philosophers". Maybe you should learn something about the field before you pontificate on it. Dennett, just for example, is a total disproof of your bizarre claim.
Nevertheless, people get testy if you mess with their pet beliefs.
Yes, I've noticed that about you.
Like you, I'd much rather focus on what we can know--not what we cannot know.
Willful ignorance, much?

Slimething

4th April 2007, 12:16 AM

That only shows your woeful ignorance about "philosophers". Maybe you should learn something about the field before you pontificate on it. Dennett, just for example, is a total disproof of your bizarre claim.

Yes, I've noticed that about you.

Willful ignorance, much?

This is what you're reduced to, gurdur? Posting stupid little snipes fulfills you?

Your argument would be more effective if you actually quoted Dennett or one of your holy philosophers in counterpoint to articulett. Maybe you're beyond articulation and reason? (What am I saying? Is there any doubt? :eek: )

Why don't you go back to your bathroom and argue with the mirror? At least there either you or someone who looks just like you stands a chance of winning!

Gurdur

4th April 2007, 12:41 AM

I'll add to that:
to me the "perception of color" game or the notion of the "hard problem" (and the Turing machine) are examples used by philosophers and theists to support the idea that their consciousness will survive their death.
Apart from Dennett given above as an example of a "philosopher" (a professional one, too!) who uses these problems in philosophy while being an atheist, Alan Turing himself, of the Turing Machine, was an atheist who did not believe in consciousness after death -- and the Turing Machine (which is much used in computation theory) has zero but zero to do with consciousness after death. Neither does subjective perception, which is what perception of colour is all about.

You really have no idea at all what you're babbling on about, do you?
Like you, I'd much rather focus on what we can know--
Then maybe you should better start learning something, rather than uttering such ignorant and prejudiced babbling.

BillyJoe

4th April 2007, 05:17 AM

If you smile at a baby, they smile back. Just because there are culturally modified smiles doesn't mean we don't have a genetically determined facial muscle reflex called a smile.

Okay, I'm conceding this one - with all those qualifications (which sort of make the reverse true as well. ;) )

Contemplating the Universe is one of my past times but contemplating whether you perceive green the same way I do is low on the list.

As I said, I was not talking about my green as opposed to your green, I was talking about your experience of green. Where exactly IS that green that you experience? What is it? How did it get there?

I do often contemplate however, just what is the world...

Do you mean - why anything at all?

...and what is this conscious thing...

The experience of green is part of this. :)

...and is the world just in my mind? Kind of the Matrix thing.

Now THAT has never had any appeal for me.
Idealism? - try jumping off a cliff and see if the world is all in your mind. :D
Matrix? - just another word for God. ;)

regards,
BillyJoe

BillyJoe

4th April 2007, 05:40 AM

to me the "perception of color" game or the notion of the "hard problem"...are examples used by philosophers and theists to support the idea that their consciousness will survive their death.

It's not a game. It's a real puzzle. How is consciousness just neural activity in the brain. How is the perception of green just a pattern of neural activity in the brain. For materialism to be true this must be true. But the puzzle has not been solved.

It's an illusion produced by the frontal lobes and the language centers of the brain.

I'll have to take you word for that but how does that actually explain the experience of green?

We can think ahead...and we feel like we are more than our brains.

You are talking about the self now, which is another question entirely.

Nevertheless, people get testy if you mess with their pet beliefs. It's a defense mechanism more than anything else, I guess. I don't see what can be learned or gained or utilized in pondering such "maybes". Like you, I'd much rather focus on what we can know--not what we cannot know.

How do you determine what we can know and what we cannot know? Maybe we can know it, maybe we can not. Only time can tell.

We all have our pet beliefs. We can all get testy if they are messed with. The disinclination to consider that the (future) answers to questions like consciousness, self, and experience could mean a refutation of your pet belief is, I think, a pretty unsceptical attitude.

regards,
BillyJoe.

cyborg

4th April 2007, 08:23 AM

Where exactly IS that green that you experience? What is it? How did it get there?

It's irrelevant as long as it's consistent.

voidx

4th April 2007, 11:51 AM

I am not talking about my perception of green compared with your perception of green. I'm talking about the perception of green itself.

You seem to imply here that there is a universally consistent perception of green, or that there is a pure essence of green. "green" in particular is a cultural creation. At the end of the day we're merely experiencing reflected wavelenghts of light. There are conditions that can wholesale change what a particular person see's as green. And also colour blindness. I think its an unfounded assumption that there is some universal essence of "green" which is unchanging.

For a start, where is the color green? Grass is not actually green. Grass reflects certain wavelengths of light which enter your eyes and stimulate receptors in your retina. No green yet. This causes stimulation of nerves. Still no green. This nerve impulses are transmitted to the cerebral cortex. Still no green? But then where is the colour green? You won't find it in the brain no matter how hard you look. Its all dark inside and, even if you shine a little light in there, all the colour you'll see is white and grey. So where or what is this colour green?

You cannot say with any certainty that the experience of "green" is not within the brain. The mistake I think is that you are looking for a specific location within the brain where "green" experience resides. When it comes to consciousness, I think many aspects of it are emergent properties of an amalagamation of brain processes. There is no location for "green" in the brain, but it emerges as a conscious artifact due to the extremely complex processing of stimulus by the brain.

Again, I think Dennett has some interesting things to say on this topic.