Is science inherently atheistic?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by AlBell

The pretense that scientific analysis of a decision is the same as making a decision so far deserves the laughing dog and double face-palm.

But who was saying that? I haven't ever said that.

What I've said is that the process by which humans make decisions, is not inherently "outside" scientific understanding or somehow "beyond the remit of science".

You can perfectly well use a scientific approach to investigate and explain how individuals make decisions.

That was what we were arguing about. I spelt it out above (and in earlier posts). That is - I was originally arguing only against the philosophical claim that science could not measure "reality". And when that claim petered out, I objected to someone here saying that various things such as "decision making" are inherently un-scientific and/or beyond the remit of science.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by dafydd

What? That makes as much sense as my gobbledegook posts. QED.

Your ability to understand my post doesn't make it gobbledygook. So far you have yet to demonstrate your interest in having an honest conversation.

You either misrepresent what I said or declare it to be meaningless.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Presumably you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

If I describe the decision someone made to kill another person, have I myself decided to kill another person?

It all depends upon how much this other person has got on your nerves, assuming that this another person is another another person. Deciding to decide to describe the decision taken by the deciding someone is decidedly a question of decision making, and deciding it would be decidedly a decision.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You either misrepresent what I said or declare it to be meaningless.

It's one of those two, yes. You decide.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by AlBell

If you could actually demonstrate Hume's Is/Ought problem has been solved and no longer matters, you'd be a textbook which usually has many customers.

The pretense that scientific analysis of a decision is the same as making a decision so far deserves the laughing dog and double face-palm.

Can you remind me what you are saying is involved in making a decision again? What is the action or process you are describing with the word?

[dafydd]

We have come a long way from the question of science being inherently atheist and now we are bogged down in a pointless word game.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by dafydd

It all depends upon how much this other person has got on your nerves, assuming that this another person is another another person. Deciding to decide to describe the decision taken by the deciding someone is decidedly a question of decision making, and deciding it would be decidedly a decision.

This is what I'm referring to: you think that you deliberate miswording of an argument is cute. You apparently have ceased trying to have a serious discussion and would reather babble on about how non-sensical the discussion is.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by dafydd

It's one of those two, yes. You decide.

I would like to think I'm not communicating clearly. I understand that you may ultimately not agree with what I have said, but I am not clear that you have understood what I have said.

[JoeBentley]

Well what do you want the serious discussion about? The original topic or the pointless semantic hijack?

What you're made because we're not discussing your silly word games? Your silly word games are the reason we aren't discussing the original topic now.

You've got a lot of gall for taking us to task for not keeping things on topic.

The lack of a serious discussion falls on you and the other Navel Gazers.

I'd love to discuss the OP seriously. You're welcome to join us at any time.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Well what do you want the serious discussion about? The original topic or the pointless semantic hijack?

What you're made because we're not discussing your silly word games? Your silly word games are the reason we aren't discussing the original topic now.

You've got a lot of gall for taking us to task for not keeping things on topic.

The lack of a serious discussion falls on you and the other Navel Gazers.

I'd love to discuss the OP seriously. You're welcome to join us at any time.

Of course you bare no responsibility for the direction of the discussion; it's all the fault of those evil "woosters"and "navel gazers", who have yet to appear in this thread.

Describing how a decision is made does not logically entail making said decision. I can describe how murderers decide to kill their victims, but that doesn't mean that I have decided to kill anyone.

Is that clear enough for you?

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Describing how a decision is made does not logically entail making said decision. I can describe how murderers decide to kill their victims, but that doesn't mean that I have decided to kill anyone.

And since both making a decision and describing the decision can be described scientifically your pointless hair split serves no purpose.

Your sad attempts to put limits on the concept of science and consistent appeal to something "outside science" as a factor in how our lives is lead speak to an obvious ulterior motive .

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Of course you bare no responsibility for the direction of the discussion; it's all the fault of those evil "woosters"and "navel gazers", who have yet to appear in this thread.

Describing how a decision is made does not logically entail making said decision. I can describe how murderers decide to kill their victims, but that doesn't mean that I have decided to kill anyone.

Is that clear enough for you?

And equally even though science can tell us how we see, the process of seeing is unscientific because science can't actually see for us.

Seeing is unscientific, and we should ask the priests what things really look like.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And since both making a decision and describing the decision can be described scientifically your pointless hair split serves no purpose.

Your sad attempts to put limits on the concept of science and consistent appeal to something "outside science" as a factor in how our lives is lead speak to an obvious ulterior motive .

And no-one has said the description isn't scientific; that's your persistent straw man. However, you have yet to explain to explain how science describes what decision to make; you have just described how people make decision. Those two actions are not equivalent.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Of course you bare no responsibility for the direction of the discussion; it's all the fault of those evil "woosters"and "navel gazers", who have yet to appear in this thread.

Describing how a decision is made does not logically entail making said decision. I can describe how murderers decide to kill their victims, but that doesn't mean that I have decided to kill anyone.

Is that clear enough for you?

Do you think that science is inherently atheistic?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

And equally even though science can tell us how we see, the process of seeing is unscientific because science can't actually see for us.

Seeing is unscientific, and we should ask the priests what things really look like.

Blah, blah, blah...do you have an actual honest representation of my argument?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

And no-one has said the description isn't scientific; that's your persistent straw man. However, you have yet to explain to explain how science describes what decision to make; you have just described how people make decision. Those two actions are not equivalent.

Does anyone have an electron microscope so we can see just how thin this hair is split?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Blah, blah, blah...do you have an actual honest representation of my argument?

Do you believe that science is inherently atheistic?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Do you think that science is inherently atheistic?

Do you realize that this is part of the discussion of whether science is inherently atheistic?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Does anyone have an electron microscope so we can see just how thin this hair is split?

Why do you think that this is hair-splitting?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Presumably you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Presumably you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

If you don't see the general principle of what's being said, my rewording it to fit your preference is not going to help you understand. You seem to be more interested in form rather than content.

Presumably you lack basic reading comprehension skills. I asked how you decided to hit the submit button not about the general principles. You seem to be happy in the abstract but skittish in the particulars.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Presumably you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

If I describe the decision someone made to kill another person, have I myself decided to kill anither person?

Try reading my reply above to Albell, and see if that clears it up for you. Ie, this one (below) -

Originally Posted by AlBell

Originally Posted by IanS

The pretense that scientific analysis of a decision is the same as making a decision so far deserves the laughing dog and double face-palm.

But who was saying that? I haven't ever said that.

What I've said is that the process by which humans make decisions, is not inherently "outside" scientific understanding or somehow "beyond the remit of science".

You can perfectly well use a scientific approach to investigate and explain how individuals make decisions.

That was what we were arguing about. I spelt it out above (and in earlier posts). That is - I was originally arguing only against the philosophical claim that science could not measure "reality". And when that claim petered out, I objected to someone here saying that various things such as "decision making" are inherently un-scientific and/or beyond the remit of science.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by tsig

You seem to be happy in the abstract but skittish in the particulars.

Indeed. We're closer to counting the angels on the head of the pin they we are to whether the sky is blue or not at this point.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by tsig

Presumably you lack basic reading comprehension skills. I asked how you decided to hit the submit button not about the general principles. You seem to be happy in the abstract but skittish in the particulars.

And I asked whether describing a decision is equivalent to making a decision. Since when is questioning someone's premises an unacceptable response to a question?

I'm sorry if you don't like the response, but the issue is not with my reading comprehension but with the fact the specific question you asked had been answered in greater generality upthread and you were simply stamping your foot and demanding an answer.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Blah, blah, blah...do you have an actual honest representation of my argument?

Do you?

How is deciding different from seeing?

[dafydd]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by tsig

You're viewing this as a dichotomy when actually it's a problem of vectors, there is no Is/Ought but rather a continuum of meaning where the Is and the Ought are viewed as one object rather than two opposing pillars of thought. Viewed in this perspective it can be seen that Is/Ought are merely two faces of the same essence.

May I say ... "hogwash!".

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And since both making a decision and describing the decision can be described scientifically your pointless hair split serves no purpose.

Your sad attempts to put limits on the concept of science and consistent appeal to something "outside science" as a factor in how our lives is lead speak to an obvious ulterior motive .

Now if it were just obvious that a 'description of the process of making a decision' and 'making a decision' were one and the same it'ud be game over. Which is basically the same assertion that 'scientific descriptions of reality' equal 'reality itself'.

How various posters continue to believe it true is the only current problem.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

And I asked whether describing a decision is equivalent to making a decision. Since when is questioning someone's premises an unacceptable response to a question?

I'm sorry if you don't like the response, but the issue is not with my reading comprehension but with the fact the specific question you asked had been answered in greater generality upthread and you were simply stamping your foot and demanding an answer.

When your answer "in greater generality" can't be applied to a specific incident then I question the generality of it.

I'm not sure why you consider trying to get an answer to a question would be perceived as stamping my foot.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Now if it were just obvious that a 'description of the process of making a decision' and 'making a decision' were one and the same it'ud be game over. Which is basically the same assertion that 'scientific descriptions of reality' equal 'reality itself'.

How various posters continue to believe it true is the only current problem.

There's a kind of science-worship involved which involves misrepresenting science. Do they really want to insist that astrologers and homeopaths are doing science?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

There's a kind of science-worship involved which involves misrepresenting science. Do they really want to insist that astrologers and homeopaths are doing science?

So far you are the only one who has insisted that.

Do you agree that seeing is unscientific?

[JoeBentley]

Is a disease healthy? No.

Does that make treating diseases not part of Health Sciences? No.

Is a building fall down sound architecture? No.

Does that make figuring our why buildings fall down no part of architectural engineering? No.

The distinction in pointless, only exists on a perspective level, and serves no purpose, other then the obvious one.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

There's a kind of science-worship involved which involves misrepresenting science. Do they really want to insist that astrologers and homeopaths are doing science?

No. The processes in their brains are run by scientific biological processes. If garbage comes out it is not the fault of science

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

So far you are the only one who has insisted that.

I'm the one who's pointed out the necessary flaw in the "everything is science" argument. Insisting that everything is science necessarily implies that astrology and homeopathy are science. If it's accepted that certain things aren't science, then it's possible to consider that making a choice is also not-scientific.

However, actually looking at this seems to be actually a painful process - to the extent that Dafydd, who had at one stage been considering the issues seriously, felt that he needed to blow up the thread.

There seems to be an unscientific worship of science - an irrational faith in rationality. If people were just rational and scientific, what a wonderful world this could be. It's a nineteenth century worldview, built on sand. There is no one rational path to follow. There is no scientifically correct way to act. The same people who deride faith are relying entirely on faith - that because science does some things extremely well, that it can do other things - even when it has no means to even address those things.

I'll keep repeating the same things, and the same fallacious arguments will be put forward, together with complaints about hairsplitting, allegations of a hidden agenda, abuse, deliberate derailing and mostly just deliberate avoidance. Vagueness and imprecision will be embraced as tools. None of which, of course, is the sign of a strong argument.

Quote:

Do you agree that seeing is unscientific?

As with everything else, it depends on the frame of reference. Establishing an argument in one frame of reference and then applying it in another is fallacious. It can either be used erroneously, or fraudulently.

So, seeing is a subjective experience that is inherently unscientific.

Or, seeing is a physical activity that can be entirely evaluated scientifically by examining the processes involved.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

No. The processes in their brains are run by scientific biological processes.

And again, you accept that because a brain is run by scientific biological processes, it is capable of doing things that we define as unscientific.

And yet... and yet... It comes so hard.

Quote:

If garbage comes out it is not the fault of science

"Fault"? Do you think that science will get kept in after school if you don't put in a good word for it?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

And again, you accept that because a brain is run by scientific biological processes, it is capable of doing things that we define as unscientific.

The astrologers and homeopaths think that they are being scientific

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

I'm the one who's pointed out the necessary flaw in the "everything is science" argument. Insisting that everything is science necessarily implies that astrology and homeopathy are science. If it's accepted that certain things aren't science, then it's possible to consider that making a choice is also not-scientific.

Except nobody has argued that everything is science.

Quote:

There seems to be an unscientific worship of science - an irrational faith in rationality.

Well I'm yet to see you come up with a better alternative. Given that science works and describes reality better than non-scientific alternatives it's not irrational to put faith in it to describe reality.

Quote:

If people were just rational and scientific, what a wonderful world this could be. It's a nineteenth century worldview, built on sand. There is no one rational path to follow. There is no scientifically correct way to act. The same people who deride faith are relying entirely on faith - that because science does some things extremely well, that it can do other things - even when it has no means to even address those things.

Nobody has made this argument in this thread. Noone has said there is a scientifically correct way to act. However over and over and over you have hinted that there is an alternative...and yet when asked you duck and weave. What is the alternative? What do we use when science, in your opinion, ends?

Quote:

I'll keep repeating the same things, and the same fallacious arguments will be put forward,

I agree, you keep repeating the same fallacious arguments nobody is making. Stop it and the conversation can progress.

Quote:

together with complaints about hairsplitting, allegations of a hidden agenda, abuse, deliberate derailing and mostly just deliberate avoidance. Vagueness and imprecision will be embraced as tools. None of which, of course, is the sign of a strong argument.

Stop doing it then. You have been asked what your alternative is. You have been asked what element of decision making science misses. You have been asked what is involved in making a decision that science cannot address. And you answer everytime with either a question or a strawman. Just address what has been asked.

Quote:

As with everything else, it depends on the frame of reference. Establishing an argument in one frame of reference and then applying it in another is fallacious. It can either be used erroneously, or fraudulently.

So, seeing is a subjective experience that is inherently unscientific.

Or, seeing is a physical activity that can be entirely evaluated scientifically by examining the processes involved.

No it doesn't depend on any frame of reference. Just address the point. Is seeing different from making a decision? Is seeing unscientific? Does describing the process of seeing in physical and biological terms not explain seeing? What is missed then?

After all science cannot tell us what to see or where to look. Describing how you see does not mean I see what you see.

[JoeBentley]

Again Westprog will it just make you happy if we just don't call it science? Does the word just bother you so much?

It's not about science, it never has been. Science is just a word that people have latched onto. It's about the fear that there isn't a part of your decision making process that you can't invoke magic about, a fear of being held to standards.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Except nobody has argued that everything is science.

Originally Posted by Joe Bentley

Your sad attempts to put limits on the concept of science and consistent appeal to something "outside science" as a factor in how our lives is lead speak to an obvious ulterior motive .

This whole discussion has been based on attacking my suggestion that certain things aren't science - just on the basis that I'm excluding them from science, which is necessarily inclusive.

Quote:

Well I'm yet to see you come up with a better alternative. Given that science works and describes reality better than non-scientific alternatives it's not irrational to put faith in it to describe reality.

And again, for however many times, there has been no suggestion that science is not the appropriate tool for describing reality.

Quote:

Nobody has made this argument in this thread. Noone has said there is a scientifically correct way to act.

And yet when I say this, people are queuing up to say that I'm wrong.

If there is not a scientifically correct way to act, then it seems fairly obvious that the selection of a way to act cannot be informed by science. That's what I've been saying, and if you misunderstood it the first ten times, you should have got it by now.

Quote:

However over and over and over you have hinted that there is an alternative...and yet when asked you duck and weave. What is the alternative? What do we use when science, in your opinion, ends?

Why is it my job to provide meaning for your life? I've told you the fact that there is no scientifically correct way to act. That's not true because I made it up. It's just true. You just wrote it yourself.

And you persist in using my posts as a Rorschach blot where you see things in the non-existent pictures. I can't help what you think I'm "hinting". That's your problem. I will debate the things I actually say. Since you've just admitted that what I said is entirely correct, why are you continuing to say that I'm wrong?

Quote:

I agree, you keep repeating the same fallacious arguments nobody is making. Stop it and the conversation can progress.

Have a look at what Joe Bentley posted.

If there was a consensus that what I (and Mijo, and Al Bell, and several others) was correct, then we could move on. Instead there is this sniping at the edges,

Quote:

Stop doing it then. You have been asked what your alternative is. You have been asked what element of decision making science misses. You have been asked what is involved in making a decision that science cannot address. And you answer everytime with either a question or a strawman. Just address what has been asked.

I cannot understand how you can post "Noone has said there is a scientifically correct way to act" and then ask what the alternative is. Alternative to what? To something you just admitted doesn't exist! There is No Scientifically Correct Way To Act. Do you think that this is true or not?

And then you veer off, as usual, into the scientific description of the decision making process. Who is saying that science cannot describe the decision making process? I've said all along that science can in principle examine every element - and yet you demand that I say it again and again, and every time I say it you come up with some rationale to convince yourself that I'm saying something else.

If There Is No Scientifically Correct Way To Act, you are faced with the question of How To Act. Or perhaps you don't accept this. If you do, or don't, please just say so. I would love to know.

Quote:

No it doesn't depend on any frame of reference. Just address the point. Is seeing different from making a decision? Is seeing unscientific? Does describing the process of seeing in physical and biological terms not explain seeing? What is missed then?

After all science cannot tell us what to see or where to look. Describing how you see does not mean I see what you see.

I gave you a full and complete answer, which you ignored. I can't help that.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

The astrologers and homeopaths think that they are being scientific

Yes, people are capable of being wrong as well. Is being wrong scientific?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

This whole discussion has been based on attacking my suggestion that certain things aren't science - just on the basis that I'm excluding them from science, which is necessarily inclusive.

Not being science and not being addressable by science are not the same thing. Agree? Astrology is not science and yet it and the questions it addresses can be investigated and understood using science.

Quote:

And again, for however many times, there has been no suggestion that science is not the appropriate tool for describing reality.

Yet you insist that there are limits to science and therefore elements of reality about which science cannot inform us?

Quote:

If there is not a scientifically correct way to act, then it seems fairly obvious that the selection of a way to act cannot be informed by science.

Nope. If there is not a scientifically correct way to act then we can still use science to inform our decisions and make decisions based on science. Does it make the decisions 'correct'...well who or what is judging? There is no correct way to act. There is only the way we choose to act and the reactions of others to what we choose.

Quote:

Why is it my job to provide meaning for your life? I've told you the fact that there is no scientifically correct way to act. That's not true because I made it up. It's just true. You just wrote it yourself.

So nothing can tell us what the 'correct' way to act is then? So what makes you think such a thing exists in reality?

Quote:

I cannot understand how you can post "Noone has said there is a scientifically correct way to act" and then ask what the alternative is. Alternative to what? To something you just admitted doesn't exist! There is No Scientifically Correct Way To Act. Do you think that this is true or not?

So science can't measure the width of blue, or the volume of contentment or define the 'correct' way to act. It's not a limitation if you can't do a meaningless thing. It would only be a limitation if you could show there is something there that can be uncovered by another means. Which it seems you can't. Fine. There's nothing there. Science can't define 'correct way to act' in the same way my car can't go faster than passion.

Quote:

And then you veer off, as usual, into the scientific description of the decision making process.

No I didn't. I asked you what was involved in decision making. What is the bit that science can't address. You were the one saying that it has limitations. That somehow making a decision is separate and different to the brain chemistry that carries out the function - we still have to decide? I believe that was your expression.

Brain chemistry + Data Input? That's all. Right? Agreed? None of that is outwith the remit of science.

Quote:

If There Is No Scientifically Correct Way To Act, you are faced with the question of How To Act. Or perhaps you don't accept this. If you do, or don't, please just say so. I would love to know.

The only dilemma I am faced with in 'How to act' is incomplete information. I don't have a dilemma in making a decision any more than I have a dilemma in seeing the house across the street.

Quote:

I gave you a full and complete answer,

Did you? Why didn't you post it then?