Is science inherently atheistic?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

Since when did " the minds of the astrologers run entirely on scientific principles " ?? Where on earth did you get that idea from?

Well, how do their minds work? Magic? What do you think is inside an astrologer's head, a glowing energy field? Or do you think that there are the same set of neurons, connecting to each other using exactly the same principles that the astronomers' brains use?

Quote:

Perhaps we do need a definition of fundamental science here -

- as a core principle, science requires that you make your " best, honest, truly objective attempt to study things " ... if you do that, then your approach is a scientific one. If you do not meet that standard, then you fall short of what science requires.

Astrologers are not of course "truly making their best attempt to be completely objective".

Astrology is very far from being objective, because it makes all sorts of unwarranted assumptions. Nor is it the astrologers "best" attempt to be objective, because they actually know that to be objective they really need to understand what has been discovered and explained by astronomy in particular and by science in general - their "best" attempt requires them to study that science in depth, and take that fully into account. ...

... they are not being "honest" in their approach either, because they really must know that there is a vast and complex body of astronomical and scientific explanation which they need to know, but they are deliberately trying to take the shortcut of completely ignoring the need to learn why science entirely rejects astrology.

And yet their brains are physical objects which run entirely according to the laws of physics.

We are indeed going around in circles here. I am attempting to differentiate between the physical process of what the astrologers do - which is entirely scientific - and their field of study - which is entirely unscientific. I think that the difference is fairly obvious.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by westprog

.....
We are indeed going around in circles here. I am attempting to differentiate between the physical process of what the astrologers do - which is entirely scientific - and their field of study - which is entirely unscientific. I think that the difference is fairly obvious.

Oh the irony.

Their field of study which is entirely imaginary? Astrology - fabricated fictional non-existant relationships.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Not currently, but the issue under discussion is whether science can provide intrinsic evaluation ethical statements, and, so far, no-one has provoded any evidence that it can.

Haven't they? Has nobody here really given you an answer to your question asking quote " whether science can provide intrinsic evaluation of ethical statements "? OK, well the answer to that is extremely simple and obvious -

- your question only asks about "evaluating" a spoken or written "statement" (whether it's claimed to be "ethical" or “intrinsic” or not). Well the answer is that science can very easily study what people mean by the statements they make ... that's obvious, and I daresay the relevant area of science literature has many thousands of papers on that sort of study ...

... you are only talking about why any of us "make a statement". You did not ask us to use science to decide if the statement is true or false ... you only wanted to know if we can make a scientifically objective study (that's mainly what distinguishes science from non-science, ie the need for rigorous objectivity) of why people say various things ... well, obviously, science can, and afaik it does (when it can be bothered ... though physicists, chemists, biologists and mathematicians would not normally waste time on that sort of thing).

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Oh the irony.

Their field of study which is entirely imaginary? Astrology - fabricated fictional non-existant relationships.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

But there is nothing 'different' and 'special' about astrology it's just brain chemistry + data too. It's just bad data mostly.

[AvalonXQ]

We're still dealing with a hardware/software disconnect. The two groups really are talking past each other here.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

You want me to die? That's not very nice.

Well, I was wishing you a graceful farewell with your family around you and spouse holding your hand. Alternatively you could have a rich and full life away from this thread.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by IanS

Since when did " the minds of the astrologers run entirely on scientific principles " ?? Where on earth did you get that idea from?

Perhaps we do need a definition of fundamental science here -

- as a core principle, science requires that you make your " best, honest, truly objective attempt to study things " ... if you do that, then your approach is a scientific one. If you do not meet that standard, then you fall short of what science requires.

Astrologers are not of course "truly making their best attempt to be completely objective".

Astrology is very far from being objective, because it makes all sorts of unwarranted assumptions. Nor is it the astrologers "best" attempt to be objective, because they actually know that to be objective they really need to understand what has been discovered and explained by astronomy in particular and by science in general - their "best" attempt requires them to study that science in depth, and take that fully into account. ...

... they are not being "honest" in their approach either, because they really must know that there is a vast and complex body of astronomical and scientific explanation which they need to know, but they are deliberately trying to take the shortcut of completely ignoring the need to learn why science entirely rejects astrology.

Originally Posted by westprog

Well, how do their minds work? Magic? What do you think is inside an astrologer's head, a glowing energy field? Or do you think that there are the same set of neurons, connecting to each other using exactly the same principles that the astronomers' brains use?


And yet their brains are physical objects which run entirely according to the laws of physics.

We are indeed going around in circles here. I am attempting to differentiate between the physical process of what the astrologers do - which is entirely scientific - and their field of study - which is entirely unscientific. I think that the difference is fairly obvious.

What? I just explained that to you in words of one syllable!

Whatever happens in an astrologers brain is superseded by the final act of what they decide to do .... and what they decide to do is to deliberately be so lacking in honest objectivity as to entirely ignore the need to study astronomy and science before pontificating about astrology in the total absence of having any credible evidence at all ... they decide to do that regardless of whatever primary sensory input they may ever have had from looking at the stars lol.

But the fact that you are apparently repeatedly incapable of understanding why astrology is not objective science, really shows how utterly pointless it is for anyone here to discuss anything with you ... either you are completely unaware of anything at all to do with science, or else you are just deliberately wasting everyones time in an endless semantic stream of deliberate spam lol.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Are you seeing a pattern here?

Yes.

[AvalonXQ]

IanS, you're still missing the hardware/software discrepancy.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

We're still dealing with a hardware/software disconnect. The two groups really are talking past each other here.

I figured it out from the discussion with Dafydd. In the end, there didn't seem to be any disagreement with anything I actually said. With LotF and SG they seem to be chiefly arguing with things I didn't say, and am not implying. I'd like it if they would actually point to what I'm saying that is wrong, and show why. That might move it along a little bit.

[AvalonXQ]

There's not really anything to argue about. We have some people here are are engaging in scientism and refuse to accept the Hume's is-ought disconnect, a few people here who are trying to explain it, and most people completely confused by the lack of well-defined terminology.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

I figured it out from the discussion with Dafydd. In the end, there didn't seem to be any disagreement with anything I actually said. With LotF and SG they seem to be chiefly arguing with things I didn't say, and am not implying. I'd like it if they would actually point to what I'm saying that is wrong, and show why. That might move it along a little bit.

My disagreement with you is that you seem to be leaving a space for some unknown process, perhaps woo-like in nature, to be involved in making decisions. Correct me if I am wrong.

[JoeBentley]

I agree with Dafydd. My issue is I see no motivation for insisting on crowbarring some perpetually (and handily for rationalization) just out of our grasp of our knowledge X factor in our decision making process other then woo.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

What? I just explained that to you in words of one syllable!

Whatever happens in an astrologers brain is superseded by the final act of what they decide to do .... and what they decide to do is to deliberately be so lacking in honest objectivity as to entirely ignore the need to study astronomy and science before pontificating about astrology in the total absence of having any credible evidence at all ... they decide to do that regardless of whatever primary sensory input they may ever have had from looking at the stars lol.

But the fact that you are apparently repeatedly incapable of understanding why astrology is not objective science,

The fact that you think that shows the lengths you are willing to go to to misunderstand the point.

Clearly I understand that astrology is not objective science. Why do you think I selected astrology as the example? It's because it's a clear example of unscientific thinking. I wanted to point up the simple fact that because brains work according to scientific principles, that is no guarantee that they will make scientific decisions.

There has to be a real need to misunderstand to not get this.

Quote:

really shows how utterly pointless it is for anyone here to discuss anything with you ...

It's certainly pointless for some people.

Quote:

either you are completely unaware of anything at all to do with science, or else you are just deliberately wasting everyones time in an endless semantic stream of deliberate spam lol.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're missing the point. Consider that for half a second.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

My disagreement with you is that you seem to be leaving a space for some unknown process, perhaps woo-like in nature, to be involved in making decisions. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are. I'm only concerned with the decisions themselves. I have no interest in this particular discussion in postulating any given mechanism. In fact, my point is that it doesn't matter what mechanism is used - the decision itself will always inherently involve a non-scientific element.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I agree with Dafydd. My issue is I see no motivation for insisting on crowbarring some perpetually (and handily for rationalization) just out of our grasp of our knowledge X factor in our decision making process other then woo.

I still think you're confusing hardware and software because of ambiguous terms.

Reasoning based on astrology: entirely scientific decision-making process or not?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

I figured it out from the discussion with Dafydd. In the end, there didn't seem to be any disagreement with anything I actually said. With LotF and SG they seem to be chiefly arguing with things I didn't say, and am not implying. I'd like it if they would actually point to what I'm saying that is wrong, and show why. That might move it along a little bit.

Well based on your repeated evasion of direct questions, you are being extremely careful not to say things. You have certainly implied you believe decision making is not simply brain chemistry + data but refuse to address what else you believe there is.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Well based on your repeated evasion of direct questions, you are being extremely careful not to say things. You have certainly implied you believe decision making is not simply brain chemistry + data but refuse to address what else you believe there is.

The hardware of decision making is brain chemistry alone.

The software of decision making is data and values. The data may be scientific facts or not; the values are necessary.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I still think you're confusing hardware and software because of ambiguous terms.

Reasoning based on astrology: entirely scientific decision-making process or not?

It's a biological process utilising non-scientific data input.

It's not however the data input phase where we seem to be in disagreement so I'm not sure where this example is helping.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

You are. I'm only concerned with the decisions themselves. I have no interest in this particular discussion in postulating any given mechanism. In fact, my point is that it doesn't matter what mechanism is used - the decision itself will always inherently involve a non-scientific element.

If you can't say what this element is then how do you know that is there?

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I still think you're confusing hardware and software because of ambiguous terms.

Stop speaking in metaphors.

Quote:

Reasoning based on astrology: entirely scientific decision-making process or not?

What difference does it make? We can describe the process scientifically.

You fail to grasp the concept that an illogical thought process can still be described logically.

Just because people often use process which aren't unscientific to make decisions doesn't make the decision themselves "outside the realm of science."

There is no part of the decision making process that science doesn't understand and the fact the people make decisions using illogical concepts doesn't change that.

You are trying to force a distinction that doesn't exist so you can wedge woo into the resulting fracture. You're creating gaps so you can put things in them.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The hardware of decision making is brain chemistry alone.

The software of decision making is data and values. The data may be scientific facts or not; the values are necessary.

The values are part of the hardware.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

You fail to grasp the concept that an illogical thought process can still be described logically.

Not only do I grasp the concept, but I have acknowledged it repeatedly.

Quote:

Just because people often use process which aren't unscientific to make decisions doesn't make the decision themselves "outside the realm of science."

Ah, so you finally acknowledge that decisions are made using unscientific processes. More particularly, decisions are made that are based on more than just scientific facts.
Can you directly acknowledge this point again, please?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

You are trying to force a distinction that doesn't exist so you can wedge woo into the resulting fracture. You're creating Gaps so you can put things in them.

How else would one find a place for an imaginary god?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

The values are part of the hardware.

And not the software? Is that what you're implying?

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Can you directly acknowledge this point again, please?

I'm not jumping through your hoops on command so you can trap me in some semantic "gotcha."

This entire thread has been about you claiming there is some sort of "beyond science" part of the decision that is implied to be both valid and useful.

Yes people often do use things other then logic and reason to make decisions. It's called stupidity.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

It's called stupdity.

Brain chemistry yet again.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

And not the software? Is that what you're implying?

I'm not sure if the distinction bothers me that much. The basic fundamental values must be part of the hardware. 'I like this and want to experience more of' vs 'I dislike this and want to experience less of it'

We can build more complex and intricate belief and value systems on top of that, call that software if you want. But these are just shortcuts for us and they arise from the fundamentals of our brain chemistry not separately.

At some point, because we complicate all of this to the extent where it feels like magic we start to think there is something else going on but there really isn't.

Brain chemistry + Data - little biological machines doing exactly what we do, bouncing off the walls of the real world, shaped by our experiences and what we are taught and what we 'learn', what we see, hear, feel, taste and smell. We could live our lives a thousand times and never get the same story twice but none of that means we aren't just brain chemistry. It's amazing that somehow we think that we are, a truly great little trick of the machine.

[dafydd]

There's a Flemish word, ''muggenzeefterij'', sifting mosquitoes. It's a sort of hyper-nitpicking and seems an apt word to apply to the way this thread has gone. ''How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'' pales into insignificance.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

But there is nothing 'different' and 'special' about astrology it's just brain chemistry + data too. It's just bad data mostly.

My point was the idea there is such a thing as absolute 'ought' outside the individual brain is just as 'unscientific' as astrology.

Westprog wanted to show that there was a scientific and an unscientific realm. But the unscientific example he cited was woo. The idea there is something special about a moral decision that makes it outside the realm of the physical body (or physical Universe beyond the reach of science) is woo.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

IanS, you're still missing the hardware/software discrepancy.

That or it is you who cannot see how science describes and predicts the software just as well as it does the hardware.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dafydd

My disagreement with you is that you seem to be leaving a space for some unknown process, perhaps woo-like in nature, to be involved in making decisions. Correct me if I am wrong.

This ^

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I agree with Dafydd. My issue is I see no motivation for insisting on crowbarring some perpetually (and handily for rationalization) just out of our grasp of our knowledge X factor in our decision making process other then woo.

And this. ^

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The hardware of decision making is brain chemistry alone.

The software of decision making is data and values. The data may be scientific facts or not; the values are necessary.

Values are generated in the brain and come from the brain (excluding the precursor nature/nurture thing here for the moment). Do you find something special about generating values that differs from everything else that occurs in the brain?

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by dafydd

There's a Flemish word, ''muggenzeefterij'', sifting mosquitoes. It's a sort of hyper-nitpicking and seems an apt word to apply to the way this thread has gone. ''How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'' pales into insignificance.

At this point it's the brain of a butterfly in a jar dreaming it's a shadow on the wall of Plato's cave of an angel dancing on the head of a pin in the Matrix.

[AvalonXQ]

Okay, good, I think we've finally got it.

Decisions must be made using some selected goal or value system which is separate from objective fact. Facts alone are an insufficient basis for decision-making.

Nevertheless, it is at least possible that science can completely explain the basis by which we select our goals or values as a product of our personal experiences and brain chemistry. In other words, the fact that our goals require us to select a premise other than scientific fact, does not place that selection necessarily outside the realm of scientific description itself.

Everybody good?

[JoeBentley]

No it's still a copout with an escape clause but that's a step in the right direction and the best we're gonna get of you, so it'll do.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

If you can't say what this element is then how do you know that is there?

Because a decision always involves a choice. This cannot be made according to scientific criteria alone, because scientific criteria alone never mandate any particular action. (Despite various claims to the contrary).

Since decisions are made, by choosing from a selection of options, and since science is entirely neutral about which element is preferable, then the decision must, necessarily, involve non-scientific criteria. That doesn't imply anything magical about the decision. A mechanical device can do the choosing for us, if we preset the criteria in it. It also doesn't imply free will. All our decisions may well be predetermined. We still have to make them.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

Can we just agree that you are all idiots? Every single one of you. And all hellbent on winning the point, even though this discussion is not only pointless but a dialogue of the deaf.

A clichéed definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. And that's what you are all doing.

And unlike the rest of you, I fully expect my repeated disruptions to continue to fail at killing this thread.

If I expected to change the minds of some of the opposition on this topic, clearly that would be futile and doomed to failure. I don't care about that. It's merely a matter of developing the argument. It would be nice if someone were reading this and thought "Ah yes, I get it" but that isn't essential.

Why are you reading it then?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by dafydd

There's a Flemish word, ''muggenzeefterij'', sifting mosquitoes. It's a sort of hyper-nitpicking and seems an apt word to apply to the way this thread has gone. ''How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'' pales into insignificance.

It seems like a trivial point, but it isn't. Any claim that it's possible to run our affairs on an entirely rational, scientific basis is inherently flawed, and it's important to know this. People who claim otherwise are perpetrating a fraud, and as we can see from the history of the twentieth century, it's a dangerous fraud.