Are most scientists emotionally mature adults?

[Revoltingest]

You've all seen it before, & now here it is again.
Professional philosophers at work....

 

[1137]

I make "that's what she said" jokes a lot. How's this fit into the whole head vs heart thing?

 

[David M]

Huh, now suddenly A is an omniscient observer??? You think making the observer omniscient is going to change the logic??? You think you have an argument because you mention both the terms objective and subjective in an accepting way???

A is posited as an omniscient observer because that allows statements about objective fact to be made without rebuttals stemming from semantic gymnastics, but unfortunately you still found a way to go there.

You often get little respect for your arguments because you refuse to accept that you don't always understand the nuances of the english language.

Read
Comprehend
Reply

That strategy would serve you well.

Now fact is defined in terms of the fact of "honesty"..

That is not what was said.

Read
Comprehend
Reply

 

[Altfish]

So did scientists do away with intelligent design theory because it is unscientific, or did they do away with it because choosing is integral to subjectivity and the head fights the heart?

"Intelligent Design Theory" - don't make me laugh; at best (and this is stretching it somewhat) it is a poorly supported hypothesis. To be a theory it has to be peer reviewed, able to make predictions and most of all stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A is posited as an omniscient observer because that allows statements about objective fact to be made without rebuttals stemming from semantic gymnastics, but unfortunately you still found a way to go there.

You often get little respect for your arguments because you refuse to accept that you don't always understand the nuances of the english language.

Read
Comprehend
Reply

That strategy would serve you well.



That is not what was said.

Read
Comprehend
Reply

That was what he said before in this topic, he said honesty is fact, and that it "insane" to say otherwise. Then without any explanation whatsoever he came up with the "omniscient" observer thing. Nobody can understand what that means just like that.

You don't know the half of it what stuff Leibowde posts. He also said to agree with my definition of subjectivity, which was of course completely untrue. He just posts whatever in a reasonable looking style. That is to say it is made to appears reasonable, the actual content of it is far from reasonable.

I am right, my argumentation is valid, subjectivity should be accepted as valid, and this is a big problem for many people, notably atheists, rationalists, scientists etc. People are going to behave the way they do once it is found they are wrong. I've got my certification as a proctologist just from debating atheists about subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"Intelligent Design Theory" - don't make me laugh; at best (and this is stretching it somewhat) it is a poorly supported hypothesis. To be a theory it has to be peer reviewed, able to make predictions and most of all stand up to scrutiny.

You should just use common sense. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, as is known by common sense. That means that if it looks like it is chosen in a sophisticated way, then it probably is. These scientists even deny people have free will, they just can't handle any freedom whatsoever.

 

[Altfish]

You should just use common sense. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, as is known by common sense. That means that if it looks like it is chosen in a sophisticated way, then it probably is. These scientists even deny people have free will, they just can't handle any freedom whatsoever.

Is that an answer? What has freedom got to do with it being a Theory?
So, please explain how the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes is intelligently designed. How the Human Eye with its blind spot is intelligently designed. Why humans are prone to back pain.
Scientists are free, scientists will make their reputations by turning over what was thought to be a theory. If a scientist could prove a Theory of Intelligent Design he would be in Darwin or Einstein's League

 

[David M]

That was what he said before in this topic, he said honesty is fact, and that it "insane" to say otherwise. Then without any explanation whatsoever he came up with the "omniscient" observer thing. Nobody can understand what that means just like that..

No, he said that whether a statement is honest or not is a fact. That is because honesty is based on the actions taken by a person based on what they know. How we judge honesty in others can be subjective or objective based on what is known of the person making the original statement. Whether a person is displaying honesty relies on that person's knowledge, someone can say something that is objectively untrue but if they don't know it to be untrue then they are being honest as far as their subjective experience allows.

I understood his reference to an omniscient observer. Only an omniscient observer has knowledge of what a person actually knows, which is required to determine honesty for statements about things that are not shared experiences.

"I had Thai food for dinner last night" is either an objectively honest statement or not with regards to whether I did actually eat Thai food last night. As you don't know what I ate last night your judgement of my honesty will be subjective, The people I was with at dinner saw what I ate and can make an objective determination of whether I am being honest, for them it is a shared experience.

But some statements are not shared experiences so returning to the original post:

If A says the earth is flat, but knows it is not then they are being dishonest. That is objectively true although an observer can only make that objective determination if they know what A really thinks (hence the inclusion of an omniscient observer), the rest of us can only make a subjective judegement, barring other statements the person may have made.

If A says that the earth is flat and truly beleives that to be the case then they are being honest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, he said that whether a statement is honest or not is a fact.

That's the same thing. And he said to deny it is "insane".

And you have to define subjective when it is at issue in debate. I have defined objective, fact, subjective, opinion, all worked out in a consistent conceptual scheme that is traditional creationism, as consistent with common discourse use of fact and opinion.

It does not follow that only an omniscient person has the information about what a person knows.

Sure you can define honesty, selfishness, love and such as objective terms, and thereby you are destroying the room for subjective terms. Love is electrochemistry in the brain, require evidence for the soul and God, deny free will is real, define subjectivity as observations related to the uniqueness of the observer, deny intelligent design / creationism, etc. All destructive of subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Is that an answer? What has freedom got to do with it being a Theory?
So, please explain how the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes is intelligently designed. How the Human Eye with its blind spot is intelligently designed. Why humans are prone to back pain.
Scientists are free, scientists will make their reputations by turning over what was thought to be a theory. If a scientist could prove a Theory of Intelligent Design he would be in Darwin or Einstein's League

Those examples of supposed inefficient design have been refuted. And besides this whole idea of doing science about how it could otherwise have been designed is basically fantasy storytelling untill you actually make the other design. Other designs have been made in regards to some genetic diseases, most genetic diseases reasonably prove in-efficient design sure enough. But they can be interpreted as exceptions, which then do not disprove the rule of intelligent design.

Your idea about science is an ideal, scientists don't necessarily behave according to that ideal. Look at yourself, you refuse to even consider how organisms could be chosen to be the way they are. Scientists are no different than you, they also just refuse it. And you are not going to get a fully developed theory without working on it, and considering it. And the climate of opinion in science is just dead against considering anything about it. But what is helping is that people now can just circumvent mainstream science with the internet.

 

[Altfish]

Those examples of supposed inefficient design have been refuted. And besides this whole idea of doing science about how it could otherwise have been designed is basically fantasy storytelling untill you actually make the other design. Other designs have been made in regards to some genetic diseases, most genetic diseases reasonably prove in-efficient design sure enough. But they can be interpreted as exceptions, which then do not disprove the rule of intelligent design.

Your idea about science is an ideal, scientists don't necessarily behave according to that ideal. Look at yourself, you refuse to even consider how organisms could be chosen to be the way they are. Scientists are no different than you, they also just refuse it. And you are not going to get a fully developed theory without working on it, and considering it. And the climate of opinion in science is just dead against considering anything about it. But what is helping is that people now can just circumvent mainstream science with the internet.

Would you please direct me to a website where my examples have been refuted. (Preferably not Answers in Genesis or similar)
I note that it has become the 'rule' of intelligent design now.
You do NOT know what my idea of science is, please do not tell me what I think. Science is not infallible, mistakes are made, corrections published, that is the beauty of science it evolves (sorry no pun intended) as new discoveries are made. I reiterate, scientists would love to disprove evolution, a Nobel Prize awaits the person who achieves it. But I doubt it will happen, there may be slight amendments to some of the ideas but evolution is like gravity - a fact!
"Mainstream science", is that the same science that gave us the airplane, your mobile phone and the internet you are reading this on? Why do you trust it when you fly but not when it disputes ancient writings?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Would you please direct me to a website where my examples have been refuted. (Preferably not Answers in Genesis or similar)
I note that it has become the 'rule' of intelligent design now.
You do NOT know what my idea of science is, please do not tell me what I think. Science is not infallible, mistakes are made, corrections published, that is the beauty of science it evolves (sorry no pun intended) as new discoveries are made. I reiterate, scientists would love to disprove evolution, a Nobel Prize awaits the person who achieves it. But I doubt it will happen, there may be slight amendments to some of the ideas but evolution is like gravity - a fact!
"Mainstream science", is that the same science that gave us the airplane, your mobile phone and the internet you are reading this on? Why do you trust it when you fly but not when it disputes ancient writings?

AiG is a good site for those kinds of refutations. I'm not going to look it up again, I just came across it. You know it's got to be wrong that there is no secondory function for this long nerve.

Go ahead then, start making theory about how organisms could have been chosen to be the way they are, the nobel prize awaits you.

 

[Desert Snake]

"Intelligent Design Theory" - don't make me laugh; at best (and this is stretching it somewhat) it is a poorly supported hypothesis. To be a theory it has to be peer reviewed, able to make predictions and most of all stand up to scrutiny.

It isn't a poorly supported hypothesis, it's the only hypothesis we currently have, /technically/.

 

[Altfish]

AiG is a good site for those kinds of refutations. I'm not going to look it up again, I just came across it. You know it's got to be wrong that there is no secondory function for this long nerve.

Go ahead then, start making theory about how organisms could have been chosen to be the way they are, the nobel prize awaits you.

I see you ignore most of my reply. If you are relying on AiG I give up - watch the YouTube video on the Dover Trial, before a Bush appointed conservative judge ID and AiG crashed and burned.
The fact that there is no secondary function for the nerve helps to prove evolution; a graduate engineer could have designed it better than a mythical creator..
I have no delusions about winning Nobel Prizes, I am too old, not clever enough and know my limits as far as science goes. A shame Ken Ham, Michael Behe or William Demski (not to mention the likes of Kent and Eric Hovind) have not realised their limits too.

 

[Altfish]

It isn't a poorly supported hypothesis, it's the only hypothesis we currently have, /technically/.

I don't understand what you are saying. ???

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't understand what you are saying. ???

I'm saying what are the other hypothesis's that would make sense with the current data. This issue is ongoing on various threads, it's like the big bang and ex-big bang prponents /nontheist/, are not understanding the problems with the ideas

 

[viole]

It isn't a poorly supported hypothesis, it's the only hypothesis we currently have, /technically/.

Like W. Pauli would say, that hypothesis is not even wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

Like W. Pauli would say, that hypothesis is not even wrong.

Ciao

- viole

Haha
wrong=/=right

 

[viole]

Haha
wrong=/=right

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Ciao

- viole

 

[David M]

That's the same thing. And he said to deny it is "insane".

No its not the same, you really don't understand the nuances of the english language. Honesty is a concept, and as defined in common discourse the concept of honesty can only result in the honesty of a statement being true or false and that result is what is a fact. The only way to get away from that is to redefine the word to have completely new meaning, which is insane.

t does not follow that only an omniscient person has the information about what a person knows.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the english langauge and common discourse by ignoring the huge qualifier that I added i.e. "which is required to determine honesty for statements about things that are not shared experiences." That means you won't have complete information about what the person knows on the subject of their statement, unless other information has already been shared.