Are most scientists emotionally mature adults?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Typically, when a person fixates on a single word from an entire sentence, they overemphasize its importance and misunderstand the meaning intended by the writer. The same thing happens when a person pulls sentences from a paragraph out of context. You seem to be doing both of these things quite often, and arriving at a lot of rather remarkable misconstructions of this writer's intent. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it doesn't seem that English is your first language, and that's causing a lot of problems with communication. Regardless, I would highly recommend taking a workshop on active listening whether you are ESL or not. And maybe learn how to not toss out so many red herrings, though I must say your ability to completely smoke-and-mirror around everything of substance I've actually said is truly remarkable.

You are projecting, you throw around the smoke and mirrors. And in the meantime you make honesty into a factual issue, together with your buddy Leibowde and the rest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Unfortunately that went over my head again. LOL
I suspect I would be able to follow it better if I knew something about philosophy.

The rules of how subjectivity works, and how objectivity works, are simpler than the rules of tic-tac-toe.

The hardness is only in the head vs heart struggle. You really want to have a high degree of confidence about what is good. To then consider that the conclusion about goodness can only be arrived at by choosing it, that by definition the other option is valid too, that is then hard to take.

 

[Quintessence]

You are projecting, you throw around the smoke and mirrors. And in the meantime you make honesty into a factual issue, together with your buddy Leibowde and the rest.

No, I'm simply ignoring thinly-veiled personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion in a vain attempt to get you to focus on what's actually important to the topic. This is what happened:

You responded to a post I made by basically calling me a liar, and repeating more of the same bollocks about scientists that just plain is not true.

I responded by saying, no, I wasn't lying, and that I was being quite honest about the reality of what scientists are actually like in the real world as opposed to inside that universe you've got in your head.

You, not wanting to listen to this, then proceeded to construct a narrative in your head about me making honesty into a "factual" matter even though what I was doing there was objecting to you basically calling me a liar. From there on, you have ignored anything presented that counters your head-universe in favor of fixating on this bizarre (albeit imaginative) narrative. ​

Yeah. I'm not going to play that game. Neither should you. Maybe go read posts like this again, and actually address what is in them. Try actually wrestling with the fact that I'm a scientist, and also a highly religious theist. And hey, I also do art and creative writing. All this subjective stuff that you claim I'm supposedly the enemy of and trying to eradicate Guess what? I'm not. And neither are other scientists (again, excepting perhaps the odd aberrant screwball that I can't say I've ever met).

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, I'm simply ignoring thinly-veiled personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion in a vain attempt to get you to focus on what's actually important to the topic. This is what happened:

You responded to a post I made by basically calling me a liar, and repeating more of the same bollocks about scientists that just plain is not true.

I responded by saying, no, I wasn't lying, and that I was being quite honest about the reality of what scientists are actually like in the real world as opposed to inside that universe you've got in your head.

You, not wanting to listen to this, then proceeded to construct a narrative in your head about me making honesty into a "factual" matter even though what I was doing there was objecting to you basically calling me a liar. From there on, you have ignored anything presented that counters your head-universe in favor of fixating on this bizarre (albeit imaginative) narrative. ​

Yeah. I'm not going to play that game. Neither should you. Maybe go read posts like this again, and actually address what is in them. Try actually wrestling with the fact that I'm a scientist, and also a highly religious theist. And hey, I also do art and creative writing. All this subjective stuff that you claim I'm supposedly the enemy of and trying to eradicate Guess what? I'm not. And neither are other scientists (again, excepting perhaps the odd aberrant screwball that I can't say I've ever met).

You talked about how the same word can be used in an objective sense and a subjective sense.

I said this is not what is going on, it is the objective sense replacing the subjective sense what is occurring.

I said you weren't being forthcoming, and sure enough in response you were forthcoming about the way you really think.

In response you made honesty into a factual issue, which is what this topic is about. Objectivity replacing subjectivity.

I offered you an out saying you made a "mistake" in saying it is a fact. You did not take this out and acknowledge your error.

In stead you went on together with Leibowde who also argues honesty is fact.

 

[Jumi]

By finding real reasons why things work, people are attacking subjectivity because you can't think things happen the way you used to? It's more of a personal preference if you want reality or choose something fantastic.

 

[Quintessence]

You talked about how the same word can be used in an objective sense and a subjective sense.

Granted. And words can indeed be used in many senses. It's why words have multiple definitions, as well as complex connotations within various cultures.

I said this is not what is going on, it is the objective sense replacing the subjective sense what is occurring.

I don't see this happening. Or at least not in the sense that you've been suggesting. It's true that a new understanding of the world has emerged since the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. It's also true (and sadly, in my opinion) that this has led some to value Enlightenment values at the expense of Romanticism.

But, you seemed to be suggesting that all scientists only use an objective understanding of terms. This is simply not the case. When I work as a scientist, yes, I need to frame things objectively because that's required of the discipline. But in the rest of my day-to-day life, I don't operate that way. Neither do other scientists. I use my science map of the territory when I'm doing science, and my religious map of the territory when I'm practicing my religion. You seem to be saying that I can't possibly do this, and that it's either-or and that I somehow have to use one or the other. It can be a both-and. I've got my feet on the ground and my head in the clouds. Is that "heart vs head" struggle you keep talking about a challenge sometimes? At times it has been, but mostly because there were people in my culture telling me that I couldn't possibly be both a scientist and an artist. That's one of those stereotypes about sciences and scientists that needs to die, because it isn't true. Nobody has to pick, and everybody can be both.

I'm not responding to the rest of what you said in this post, I'm afraid. I'm done responding to bogus misconstructions of what I said. But I have learned that I should apparently not use the word "fact" around you, because you'll latch onto it like a leech and proceed to completely miss the point of what I'm saying. Are you going to address the substance of what's been said here yet? Last chance. I'm bored, but I'm running short on patience.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Granted. And words can indeed be used in many senses. It's why words have multiple definitions, as well as complex connotations within various cultures.



I don't see this happening. Or at least not in the sense that you've been suggesting. It's true that a new understanding of the world has emerged since the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. It's also true (and sadly, in my opinion) that this has led some to value Enlightenment values at the expense of Romanticism.

But, you seemed to be suggesting that all scientists only use an objective understanding of terms. This is simply not the case. When I work as a scientist, yes, I need to frame things objectively because that's required of the discipline. But in the rest of my day-to-day life, I don't operate that way. Neither do other scientists. I use my science map of the territory when I'm doing science, and my religious map of the territory when I'm practicing my religion. You seem to be saying that I can't possibly do this, and that it's either-or and that I somehow have to use one or the other. It can be a both-and. I've got my feet on the ground and my head in the clouds. Is that "heart vs head" struggle you keep talking about a challenge sometimes? At times it has been, but mostly because there were people in my culture telling me that I couldn't possibly be both a scientist and an artist. That's one of those stereotypes about sciences and scientists that needs to die, because it isn't true. Nobody has to pick, and everybody can be both.

I'm not responding to the rest of what you said in this post, I'm afraid. I'm done responding to bogus misconstructions of what I said. But I have learned that I should apparently not use the word "fact" around you, because you'll latch onto it like a leech and proceed to completely miss the point of what I'm saying. Are you going to address the substance of what's been said here yet? Last chance. I'm bored, but I'm running short on patience.

I already addressed your argument. You say that words are being used with an objective sense, and a subjective sense, I say the subjective sense is being replaced by the objective sense. The evidence shows that I am right and you are wrong.

You may say that you were using the word fact in it's subjective sense, to denote very high confidence in your judgement that you were being honest. But that's not the way that works given the reality of the head vs heart struggle, given the large temptation to regard good and evil as fact.

 

[Quintessence]

Doesn't seem to me that you've addressed what's been presented at all, given there's been pretty clear evidence presented that contradicts your conclusions and you've proceeded to ignore all of it. But whatever story you want to tell yourself, I guess.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Doesn't seem to me that you've addressed what's been presented at all, given there's been pretty clear evidence presented that contradicts your conclusions and you've proceeded to ignore all of it. But whatever story you want to tell yourself, I guess.

You want to have a go one more time? Alright then. You argue in concert with Leibowde who says "It is insane to claim that whether someone is being honest at a specific moment in time is not a factual issue." So much for your idea about using both a subjective and an objective sense of a word. You talk in terms of honesty being a matter of fact issue, you argue in concert with somebody else who says it is a matter of fact issue, the straightforward conclusion is that you are surpressing subjectivity.

And the rest of what you write is just debating tactics. Leibowde also simply uses completely contradictory positions as debating tactics. Previously in the topic he says there is an essentially subjective aspect to honesty, later he says it is insane not to consider honesty a factual issue. Whatever he thinks he can get away with at the time. You provide no unequivocal acceptance of the validity of subjectivity as categorically distinct from fact.

 

[picnic]

The rules of how subjectivity works, and how objectivity works, are simpler than the rules of tic-tac-toe.

The hardness is only in the head vs heart struggle. You really want to have a high degree of confidence about what is good. To then consider that the conclusion about goodness can only be arrived at by choosing it, that by definition the other option is valid too, that is then hard to take.

I am still struggling to understand, but I did have a thought on the what you define as subjectivity (FWIW). When we interact with other humans or even animals, we need to imagine what is happening inside their minds. What are their motives, feelings, etc.? You define these things as agencies. We empathize and imagine what we might want and feel in similar circumstances, and then we respond accordingly. Religion takes this idea that works for human interactions and extends it to meteorology, astronomy, luck, etc. Religion imagines personalities for these things and tries to interact with those personalities in the same way that humans interact.

 

[picnic]

Another thought using the game analogy. If you are playing a game, is there any advantage to imagining what is going on in your opponent's head? I suppose there might be advantages in poker maybe? Probably people that study game theory have thought about this. If I was playing chess, and the other person knew how stupid I am at chess, could he defeat me sooner than if he worries that I might know the game? It seems like he probably could IMO. Of course, my opponent should have good reasons to conclude that I am a novice before using riskier strategies against me. This type of speculation is not as wild as belief in gods where there usually isn't any reason to believe except for childhood indoctrination.

 

[Quintessence]

You want to have a go one more time? Alright then. You argue in concert with Leibowde who says "It is insane to claim that whether someone is being honest at a specific moment in time is not a factual issue."

I said and argued no such thing. It seems you didn't notice that @leibowde84 and @Quintessence are two different people. He's not my "buddy," he doesn't speak for me, I don't speak for him, and I haven't been arguing "in concert" with him. Frankly, I haven't payed much attention to what he's posted at all. Try paying attention to what *I* have been saying. You'd see that some of it is sympathetic to your perspective, if you'd actually pay some attention.

 

[Yerda]

For a scientist to say "the painting is beautiful", he or she may very well conceive of that as a statement of fact about the electrochemistry in their brain, and not as opinion.

I think they are expressing an opinion. That is my opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I am still struggling to understand, but I did have a thought on the what you define as subjectivity (FWIW). When we interact with other humans or even animals, we need to imagine what is happening inside their minds. What are their motives, feelings, etc.? You define these things as agencies. We empathize and imagine what we might want and feel in similar circumstances, and then we respond accordingly. Religion takes this idea that works for human interactions and extends it to meteorology, astronomy, luck, etc. Religion imagines personalities for these things and tries to interact with those personalities in the same way that humans interact.

The choosing is the hard part, you don't mention it. If you say the guy has hate in his heart, that answers is valid, and if you say the guy has love in his heart, that is equally a logically valid answer. And if you see that things can turn out several different ways in nature, then that is choosing all the same, and you can then reach a conclusion about what the agency of those decisions is, by choosing it. I don't think personality is a synonym for spirit, but it is close.

And the logic says, that when you first make the opinion the agency of some decision is loving, you can still just change your mind and redecide the issue, and make the opinion that the particular decision was hateful. The answer is still just as valid. So nothing is ever really established about what the agency of a decision is, it is only expressed what it is.

And next is then to consider what is love and hate, when they are not doing the job of making a decision turn out the way it does. That there is a spiritual domain, which doesn't need any material domain, even there is a material domain now. And I think that is more proper religious subjectivity, while only referring to agency is more common subjectivity. The soul, which is someone as being the owner of all their decisions, past, present, and future, and the lord God almighty in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[leibowde84]

That's not relating subjectivity to freedom, it is relating subjectivity to uniqueness.

Nope. Not sure how you got there. But, I was just pointing out that "evil" is a term that applies to different behaviors, depending on the individual judging such behavior.

 

[leibowde84]

That's not relating subjectivity to freedom, it is relating subjectivity to uniqueness.

Uniqueness of opinion is subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Uniqueness of opinion is subjectivity.

Who is the real leibowde?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Having watched a bunch of The Simpsons (there is currently an "every Simpons episode marathon"), the first thing I thought to myself when I clicked on this thread was "d'oh!"
Why can't I stay away?

 

[leibowde84]

Who is the real leibowde?

What does this mean?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What does this mean?

You ague subjectivity is about uniqueness, and argue subjectivity is not about uniqueness, which is it?