Credulous skeptics

[KWED]

At risk of repeating myself, scripture can only become a source of authority for inconvertibly true principles if it is adopted as such without qualification by the teaching of a religion. To start with, a religion has to lay down (i.e. teach) what writings are to be considered scripture and then in what spirit they should be read (literally, figuratively and so forth).

Your example is absurd since no scripture says any such thing and is not likely to. It's an Aunt Sally.

Let's confine ourselves firstly to what scriptures actually say and, secondly, to what religions interpret them to mean. Only then can we have a discussion that can lead somewhere.

(The thing about maths and the devil was not said by anyone and certainly not in any scripture. So it's not a helpful example.)

If a god sends down revelation, then it is "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." whether anyone follows it or not.

 

[Hop_David]

No. If a revealed scripture said (for example) "Do not investigate the nature of My Works, for down that path lies the devil. All things happen only by My Will and Decree, do not doubt this" - that would very likely stifle science directly through scripture.

How about if a revealed scripture said (for example) "Humans are put on this earth to serve baboons" that might cause the baboon population to increase.

What point are you trying to make with these silly invented hypotheticals?

Again, Ghazali never said the words Tyson attributes to him. This hypothetical is a figment of yours and Tyson's imagination.

How about this hypothetical: Religious philosophers instruct believers to "Study the Book of Nature. It is a source of God's revelation to mankind" that might cause an increase in human knowledge.

Which, in fact, is what happened. On more than one occasion. See, for example, Book of Nature. This is a hypothetical that's actually been tested.

 

[Hop_David]

Tyson has a PhD in Astrophysics and actually did some work in the subject when he was a graduate student and the years immediately after. That's his area of expertise, the area in which he was professionally trained. Today he's a planetarium director and a writer of popular science titles (some of them rather good).

Tyson flunked out of his doctoral program at the University of Texas. His advisors suggested that he pursue a different career, that he didn't have an aptitude for physics.

And they were correct. Not only is Tyson a source of bad history, he also manages to botch basic math and physics on occasion.

I'm sure that R. Michael Rich of Columbia noticed that Neil's lectures were very popular. The man definitely has charisma. I believe Rich worked to get credentials for Neil thinking that science desperately needs a charismatic advocate.

And science and rational thinking do indeed need a charismatic advocate. If Neil had some standards for rigor and accuracy I would say Rich did the right thing. However Tyson has no such standards.

In some (most?) cases, they might have been rather historically ignorant themselves and already believed what he was telling them, nodding in agreement.

And most of them probably knew Tyson personally. Even if they recognized some historical errors, they might have wanted to be polite and not show up their friend.

If I saw a friend very publicly saying wrong stuff I'd be anxious that someone would publicly embarrass him. I would take him aside and privately tell him "No! Say something different! Okay? Not that! Because it's just wrong."

So yeah, I would say they were ignorant and nodding in agreement. Nodding in agreement for years and even decades.

But I have to admit if I don't see a reason to check accuracy I generally don't bother. It would be a huge amount of time and effort to fact check every claim that crosses my path.

But it is interesting what happened after Sean Davis called out Neil's Bush & Star Names story. Many of Neil's supporters were calling Davis a liar! Even when Davis' criticisms were easily verifiable.

Even in this thread you can see someone saying I'm bearing false witness against Neil regarding the Bush and Star Names story. And this post is getting Winner reactions!

It seems many self proclaimed skeptics have a strong confirmation bias and a sad lack of critical thinking skills.

Perhaps the bottom line here is that people are willing to accept far worse arguments in favor of things they already believe than for things they oppose. That's as true for "skeptics" as for the ufo or paranormal "nuts" they fight incessantly. We see it every day in our hyper-partisan politics. It's a human failing I guess that can be found in everyone.

I completely agree. Every human is vulnerable to these failings. We all tend to swallow falsehoods if they seem to support what we want to believe.

The way to mitigate this is to make it a habit to challenge claims to see if they're supported by evidence. An excellent piece of advice that "skeptics" like to give but fail to follow.

 

[rational experiences]

How can you be a skeptic if you don't challenge the practice by practising the practice?

Not literature. Steps of quietness. Calm. Good manners. Removal of personal hatred anger and judgements. Meditate. Study healing. Study psychic brain entraining.

Which has been proven taught.

If it couldn't be taught. It wouldn't be termed a practice?

The idea of passing on bad parenting techniques by not dealing with personal grief or misunderstandings in relationships.

Spiritual. Understanding where bad behaviour comes from. To be more compassionate. Spiritual. It's real.

I started to see visions with my eyes open. I didn't just say okay it's real. I sat up. I blinked and opened shut my eyes. Pinched myself. Still there.

It was a human experience. You can't claim it wasn't. So I'd ask a skeptic what is your mission?

As any human has to own what they claim is the reason to argue.

I found that many scientists disclaimer that creation came from a spiritual place involved their thesis for machine experiments.

So you have scientists who claim they study to find and know what changed life forms to become other new life forms. To humans who adamantly state a God created all things.

As it's about why a science theist wants to know. To have it. To use it as resourcing advice. To be the most powerful human ever.

You don't seem to broach that story like you used to.

And nor do you question what type of authentic memories humans own about past human science. And technologies used as the claim life was destroyed and sacrificed.

Aliens seems to be a very old human memory. And only since modern nuclear change has it re emerged once again.

Instead of being skeptical you should reason it's happened before. And isn't understood. Humans nature own reason that tries to make any study reasonable.

We seem to own great difficulty in claiming I really don't know. Science is the study that seemingly says it knows everything even before they know.

I believe if you use machines to study as science it belongs to the state machine.

If you enlarge to see....then the term I enlarged to see what exists already is stated. You couldn't naturally see it.

We taught that if you see something and it disappears it's just visions.

 

[Hop_David]

Also the reason why he was charged is far more complex than "he contradicted the church". With a bit more tact he could have continued teaching heliocentrism as a hypothesis rather than a fact (and at that stage it still was a hypothesis).

Agree. It's noteworthy Kepler wasn't arrested.

I was surprised to learn that Kepler and Galileo were contemporaries. Kepler's heliocentric model is so much more accurate and insightful. Kepler's 3 laws paved the way for Newton's Principia. So I thought surely Kepler must have came after Galileo. A misconception I held for decades.

So why does Galileo get so much more press? Because he flipped off an oligarch. Which has always been bad for your health. Just ask the folks in the atheist state of North Korea.

Copernicus' text on heliocentrism was dedicated to the Pope and published by a bishop after all.

Indeed. Copernicus' Commentariolus had been in circulation for decades. It was shared with bishops, archbishops, cardinals and the pope. And you're correct that it was a bishop that got Copernicus to publish De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium.

The story of Copernicus keeping his ideas secret for fear of The Church is another one of Tyson's fictions.

 

[Hop_David]

No, I think that this nonsense of his is just an excuse to attack Tyson and his science.

What science am I attacking?

Climate change? I believe human caused climate change is real. That there is the potential of rising sea levels to flood our coastal cities. In my opinion we should have ditched carbon energy yesterday.

Covid? I'm double vaxed and boosted. I avoid crowds and wear a mask. I encourage others to do the same.

You would call me anti science because I demand evidence to support Tyson's claims? You are the anti-science person in this discussion.

It appears to be a cover up. At least one of his claims appears to be wrong.

Again -- which one?

You haven't shown me Bush's 9-11 speech where he's bragging about his God in attempt to distinguish we from they.

You haven't shown me the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the Devil.

You haven't shown me evidence that Newton worked out Principia before he turned 26. Nor have you shown me evidence Newton stopped working on n-body models after he wrote Principia.

Nobody in this thread has provided a shred of evidence against my claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What science am I attacking?

Climate change? I believe human caused climate change is real. That there is the potential of rising sea levels to flood our coastal cities. In my opinion we should have ditched carbon energy yesterday.

Covid? I'm double vaxed and boosted. I avoid crowds and wear a mask. I encourage others to do the same.

You would call me anti science because I demand evidence to support Tyson's claims? You are the anti-science person in this discussion.



Again -- which one?

You haven't shown me Bush's 9-11 speech where he's bragging about his God in attempt to distinguish we from they.

You haven't shown me the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the Devil.

You haven't shown me evidence that Newton worked out Principia before he turned 26. Nor have you shown me evidence Newton stopped working on n-body models after he wrote Principia.

Nobody in this thread has provided a shred of evidence against my claims.

Like it or not the Ghazali claim appears to be accurate. Other historians share his view. He was not the only cause, but he appears to have been a major factor in Islam's ending its Golden Age.

 

[Hop_David]

Like it or not the Ghazali claim appears to be accurate.

Tyson says there is a Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

You say this is a valid claim? Show me the evidence.

Other historians share his view. He was not the only cause, but he appears to have been a major factor in Islam's ending its Golden Age.

And many historians do not. The historians that disagree provide actual evidence to back up their arguments.

They provide Ghazali quotes praising the disciplines of math and science.

And they provide many examples of Islamic scientists and mathematicians making contributions well after Ghazali.

All you can do is name some historian that agrees with you, evidence be damned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tyson says there is a Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

You say this is a valid claim? Show me the evidence.




And many historians do not. The historians that disagree provide actual evidence to back up their arguments.

They provide Ghazali quotes praising the disciplines of math and science.

And they provide many examples of Islamic scientists and mathematicians making contributions well after Ghazali.

All you can do is name some historian that agrees with you, evidence be damned.

Did he now? Or perhaps you are merely taking things too literally. Of course if one is always overly literalistic one can show that others are "wrong".










Did he now?

 

[Hop_David]

Did he now?

Yup. He sure did.

Here

he took all these ways people were practicing Islam put him together codified it said this is what you need to do to be a good Muslim ... And in there was the statement that manipulating numbers was the work of the devil and that cut out the kneecaps of the entire mathematical enterprise of that period

And here

in that text included the assertion which gained influence socially but then politically so then it had power of influence in there was the assertion that mathematics and the manipulation of numbers was the work of the devil

So show me this text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup. He sure did.

Here


And here


So show me this text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

You are still being too literal. He does not have to say that directly. If his work implies that, and that seems to be the case, then he would be correct. As I said, you are being overly literalistic. He never supposedly quotes his work, he only tells you what his work says. You made an unreasonable demand based upon your overly literal interpretation of Tyson. That is why no one can meet your bogus challenge.

 

[Hop_David]

You are still being too literal.

Nope. Again Tyson's words "in there was the assertion that mathematics and the manipulation of numbers was the work of the devil"

Was there or was there not a Ghazali text containing the assertion that mathematics and the manipulation of numbers was the work of the devil?

Augustus has provided examples of Ghazali condemning those who would attack math. As have I.

You have not provided a shred of evidence countering my criticism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. Again Tyson's words "in there was the assertion that mathematics and the manipulation of numbers was the work of the devil"

Was there or was there not a Ghazali text containing the assertion that mathematics and the manipulation of numbers was the work of the devil?

Augustus has provided examples of Ghazali condemning those who would attack math. As have I.

You have not provided a shred of evidence countering my criticism.

And again you are simply being overly literal.

If a critic of Donald Trump listed all of the ignorant and false things that Trump said but never used the words "stupid idiot" or "liar" but made sure that there was no doubt about that would another person be wrong in saying that "X really called Trump a stupid lying idiot in this article"?

You might have a valid complain if you said that Tyson over simplified this.

 

[Hop_David]

And again you are simply being overly literal.

If a critic of Donald Trump listed all of the ignorant and false things that Trump said but never used the words "stupid idiot" or "liar" but made sure that there was no doubt about that would another person be wrong in saying that "X really called Trump a stupid lying idiot in this article"?

You might have a valid complain if you said that Tyson over simplified this.

Nobody has provided a Ghazali text where he says math is the work of the devil. Nor a text where he even implies that.

Lots of people have provided Ghazali texts where he condemns people who criticize math.

Your furious hand waving doesn't change the fact that you are choosing to ignore evidence.

 

[Augustus]

You are still being too literal. If his work implies that, and that seems to be the case, then he would be correct. As I said, you are being overly literalistic. He never supposedly quotes his work, he only tells you what his work says.

Imagine not interpreting this to mean maths is the work of the devil

Tyson's just telling us what his work says: that by using maths and science against the arguments of the philosophers he is demonstrating his irrational hatred for maths and science.

If there's one thing that rational sceptics hate, it's people using maths and science to refute irrational arguments made by philosophers. Nothing could be more anti-science than that

Again, the eye sees a star and believes it as large as a piece of gold, but mathematical
calculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and all others
which the senses declare true, are subsequently contradicted and convicted of falsity in an
irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason...

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best
way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their
professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and
moon, and condemns them in the name of religion. These accusations are carried
far and wide, they reach the ears of the philosopher who knows that these theories
rest on infallible proofs; far from losing confidence in them, he believes, on the
contrary, that Islam has ignorance and the denial of scientific proofs for its basis,
and his devotion to philosophy increases with his hatred to religion.
It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam
involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains
nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no
attack on religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody has provided a Ghazali text where he says math is the work of the devil. Nor a text where he even implies that.

Lots of people have provided Ghazali texts where he condemns people who criticize math.

Your furious hand waving doesn't change the fact that you are choosing to ignore evidence.

Hand waving and denial is all that you have. If you want evidence you need to be at bit more reasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Imagine not interpreting this to mean maths is the work of the devil

Tyson's just telling us what his work says: that by using maths and science against the arguments of the philosophers he is demonstrating his irrational hatred for maths and science.

If there's one thing that rational sceptics hate, it's people using maths and science to refute irrational arguments made by philosophers. Nothing could be more anti-science than that

Again, the eye sees a star and believes it as large as a piece of gold, but mathematical
calculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and all others
which the senses declare true, are subsequently contradicted and convicted of falsity in an
irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason...

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best
way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their
professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and
moon, and condemns them in the name of religion. These accusations are carried
far and wide, they reach the ears of the philosopher who knows that these theories
rest on infallible proofs; far from losing confidence in them, he believes, on the
contrary, that Islam has ignorance and the denial of scientific proofs for its basis,
and his devotion to philosophy increases with his hatred to religion.
It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam
involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains
nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no
attack on religion.

And this mistake of yours has been already explained to you. This is the same thing that creationists do. They will accept some science but not all science.

 

[Augustus]

And this mistake of yours has been already explained to you. This is the same thing that creationists do. They will accept some science but not all science.

And why this argument is fallacious has already been pointed out to you: thinking of 11th C religious and philosophical disputes through the lens of 21st C Protestant fundamentalism v modern science is completely anachronistic.

What science do you think he was actually opposing? Evolution? Radiocarbon dating? The fossil record?

Much of the "science" of the day was not empirical, it was based on the view that human reason was perfect.

His argument against this position is literally one of the foundations of modern scepticism: evidence often shows that human senses and assumptions are wrong.

This is why it is naive to view the past based on modern categories. Neither AG nor his opponents have neat modern analogues as they lived in a completely different intellectual world.

 

[Hop_David]

And this mistake of yours has been already explained to you.

What mistake?

The actual Ghazali quote Augustus provides says pretty much the opposite of the (apparently) fictitious quote Tyson gives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why this argument is fallacious has already been pointed out to you: thinking of 11th C religious and philosophical disputes through the lens of 21st C Protestant fundamentalism v modern science is completely anachronistic.

What science do you think he was actually opposing? Evolution? Radiocarbon dating? The fossil record?

Much of the "science" of the day was not empirical, it was based on the view that human reason was perfect.

His argument against this position is literally one of the foundations of modern scepticism: evidence often shows that human senses and assumptions are wrong.

This is why it is naive to view the past based on modern categories. Neither AG nor his opponents have neat modern analogues as they lived in a completely different intellectual world.

And you struggle to avoid seeing the point again using a red herring fallacy.