Is atheism a threat to humanity?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I know that I believe that I am a pacifist. Are you a pacifist? Are all humans pacifists?
What I know is something subjective. So how do you turn "I am a pacifist" into a scientific fact, because science only deal in objective fact.
You could like the scientific theory of gravity, refer to the scientific theory of pacifism. So how do we build so a test? How do we observe that? What do we measure pacifism in, what type of unit in the international scientific measurement standard do we use? What kind of instrument do we use? What is formula for pacifism?
You know like this one: F = mg

Let us try with the feeling of being wet. Most humans know that feeling, unless they have a disorder. Or the smell of roses. Did you know, that to a few humans roses smell bad. That is how you know it is not objective and not based on objective empirical observation.
So again. You know it be now - the scientific theory of feeling wet. Its formula, what it is measured in and so on. Or the scientific theory of smelling roses; again you know the drill. Formula, units measured in and so on.

Now to politics, you know politics. right?!! Please give the scientific theory of democracy and while you are at - the scientific theory of universal human rights. You know, the declaration(did you notice that word - declaration) of universal human rights. That was signed by politicians from different countries.
BTW I know I am a social democrat Scandinavian style. I know this because I had my brain scanned, otherwise I wouldn't know it, right?!! So when did you have your brain scan done to determine your political leaning?

This is fun, you know a lot of this, which are all science and nothing else, right?!! Now I am just waiting to you to post the scientific theories and all that.

Do you know what? I think you know a lot a things, which is not science. E.g. you know how to fill out a tax form, right?!! Did you know that not all humans can fill out tax forms? Do you know how to explain that? It is because it is subjective.

More word salad is it?

Ok then.

I guess you can't answer the question directly.



..or are you using a random text generator to formulate your posts?

Maybe both. Who really knows at this point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More word salad is it?

Ok then.

I guess you can't answer the question directly.



..or are you using a random text generator to formulate your posts?

Maybe both. Who really knows at this point.

How do I formulate a post as me? How do you replicate me?
I mean we can replicate the scientific theory of gravity. So how do you replicate me as you? You can't, we are both subjective in part. Gravity is objective.

 

[Augustus]

I am uninterested in your tangents, or your agenda.

My "agenda" is your view of science is oversimplistic and not supported by contemporary [secular] scholars.

We both know that your original post , as well as the most recent one were disingenuous vis a vis what I wrote, and I feel no obligation to follow you there.

You wrote: "Science is all of our knowledge and the reliable ways of getting to it, testing it, and verifying it."

It is not 'disingenuous' to note that this is a) not the common usage of the term and b) a naive version of logical positivism that is rejected by basically all contemporary [secular] philosophers of science.

And if it were that simple, then why is there such a thing as the demarcation problem that the actual experts can't really 'solve'?

Give me an example of mind without brain.

????

Give me an example of knowledge that isn't testable or reproducible.

I already mentioned some of these.

History can't be tested or reproduced, and is thus probabilistic. Heuristics may be 'false', yet function as a genuine aid for decision making (i.e. produce net benefit over time even if not strictly 'true').

As to the issue of demarcation between science and 'not science', it's not as simple as saying 'all testable or reproducible knowledge is science':

Philosopher of Science Susan Haack:

Other criteria have been proposed – that real science relies on controlled experiments for example (which, however, would rule out not only anthropology and sociology, but also – most implausibly of all – astronomy). The best we might hope for, I believe, is a list of “signs of scientificity” none of which would be shared by all sciences, but each of which would be found, in some degree, in some sciences. The fact is that the term “science” simply has no very clear boundaries: the reference of the term is fuzzy, indeterminate and, not least, frequently contested.

This is not to say that we can’t, in a rough and ready way, distinguish between the sciences and other human activities, including other human cognitive activities; but it is to say that any such distinction can only be rough and ready. I might say, as a first approximation, that science is best understood, not as a body of knowledge, but as a kind of inquiry (so that cooking dinner, dancing, or writing a novel, isn’t science, nor pleading a case in court).

At a second approximation, I would add that, since the word “science” has come to be tied to inquiry into empirical subject-matter, formal disciplines like logic or pure mathematics don’t qualify as sciences, nor normative disciplines like jurisprudence or ethics or aesthetics or epistemology).

And at a third approximation, to acknowledge that the work picked out by the word “science” is far from uniform or monolithic, it makes sense to say, rather, that the disciplines we call “the sciences” are best thought of as forming a loose federation of interrelated kinds of inquiry.

But if we want to get a clear view of the place of the sciences among the many kinds of inquiry, of the place of inquiry among the many kinds of human activity, and of the interrelations among the various disciplines classified by deans and librarians as sciences, we will need to look for continuities as well as differences. For there are marked affinities between (as we say) “historical” sciences like cosmology and evolutionary biology, and what we would ordinarily classify simply as historical inquiry. There is no sharp boundary between psychology and philosophy of mind, nor between cosmology and metaphysics.45

Nor is there any very clear line between the very considerable body of knowledge that has grown out of such primal human activities as hunting, herding, farming, fishing, building, cooking, healing, midwifery, child-rearing, etc., etc., and the more systematic knowledge of agronomists, child psychologists, etc.46

Scientific inquiry is recognizably continuous with more commonplace and less systematic kinds of empirical inquiry – inquiry into the causes of spoiled crops, the design of fishing boats, the medicinal properties of herbs, etc.. It is more systematic, more refined, and more persistent; but sometimes it rediscovers, and builds on, traditional knowledge: as Linnaeus, for example, built on traditional Lap taxonomies of plants and animals; 47 or as many drugs now part of the arsenal of modern scientific medicine were derived from what were originally folk remedies.

http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Haack, Six Signs of Scientism.pdf

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You said:

If you don't understand what the result is of a trolley impacting a human or groups of humans, then there isn't even a (recognized) problem to solve...
"What I actually said, was that science informs us about the consequences of our actions.
In this case, what the consequence is of hitting a person with a trolley."
... You can't do morality properly without science, as science informs you on the consequences of your actions

This seems to suggest that "in this case", it is 'science' informing us of the consequences of being hit by a trolly (rather than knowledge which is pretty much implicit to anyone older than a baby). Is this correct?

It is essentially scientific knowledge, yes, as it deals with forces, velocity, etc.
All things which can literally be calculated to the T.

That they are implicit in this specific simplistic case doesn't change anything about the fact that this deals with physics.

A lot of cases aren't as simplistic.

The point is that this is information which deals with the external world, with how the world works - which is the domain of science. Just because it's easy science, doesn't make it any less scientific. It is the domain of science.

Understanding what causes bodily injury is such rudimentary knowledge

Rudimentary knowledge, ey?
How rudimental was the knowledge of how people get infected with viruses, before we knew what viruses were? To name just one example.

There many ways in which the human body, or health, can be extremely harmed / damaged / injured wich really aren't obvious at all. And which were only discovered after many decades of research and study.

None of this changes the fact off course that the consequences of being hit with a trolley is pure physics.
Understanding those consequences are a direct result of empirical knowledge of the external world. Which is the domain of science. Just because you don't need a phd in physics to figure that out, doesn't change the fact that it's empirical understand of the world. Scientific understanding.

, that it would follow that basically any knowledge derived empirically must also be 'science'.

And in a very real sense, it is.
Empirical / scientific knowledge is essentially the same thing.
Some things just require a lot less study. Nevertheless, the understanding is still the result of empirical experimentation. Toddlers (not babies) learn these things also by empirical experimentation.

Just the other day, I had to scream at my 3-year old to stay on the sidewalk, because he does not yet fully comprehend the danger of being hit by a car.

If this is not what you meant then fair enough, it was a misunderstanding, but you can probably see why someone might think you were making this point.

It was indeed my point. It's empirical / scientific knowledge about the world. What happens when being hit by a trolley at various speeds, is physics.

You seem to be dwelling on this extremely simplistic example, which was in fact just an illustration of the larger point. Which is no more or less then the more understanding you have about the world and its workings, the better informed you are which will help you in decision making and moral evaluation.

That's it. The trolley thingy is just a nice illustration, because a person who is, for some bizar reason, completely oblivious to even this simple empirical understanding of physics, will not see a trolly problem. Because he will not understand the consequences of the impact, as a direct result of not having that empirical understanding of simple physics.

If simply knowing the consequences of basic actions is 'science', then shooting someone in the face to cause them harm is 'science', or raping a child because you believe it will fill some sick urge is 'science'.

That's not what I said.
I said that understanding how the world works, helps us understanding the consequences of actions.
I don't need to shoot someone as an experiment, when I understand the physics of a bullet impacting a squishy human at high velocity. I already know what will happen.

Honestly, you disappoint me greatly. Usually your posts are a bit higher level then this.

Just as we may choose to do moral actions because we understand the consequences, we can also do immoral actions because we understand the consequences.

Yeah, doing things while knowing the consequences will be harmfull, that's called being immoral and having bad intentions.....

What do you think qualifies as science?

Empirical study of the world, trying to figure out how stuff works and then test those ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Haack, Six Signs of Scientism.pdf

Found this:
"This is not to say that we can’t, in a rough and ready way, distinguish between the sciences and other human activities, including other human cognitive activities; but it is to say that any such distinction can only be rough and ready. I might say, as a first approximation, that science is best understood, not as a body of knowledge, but as a kind of inquiry (so that cooking dinner, dancing, or writing a novel, isn’t science, nor pleading a case in court). At a second approximation, I would add that, since the word “science” has come to be tied to inquiry into empirical subject-matter, formal disciplines like logic or pure mathematics don’t qualify as sciences, nor normative disciplines like jurisprudence or ethics or aesthetics or epistemology). And at a third approximation, to acknowledge that the work picked out by the word “science” is far from uniform or monolithic, it makes sense to say, rather, that the disciplines we call “the sciences” are best thought of as forming a loose federation of interrelated kinds of inquiry."

So mathematics is not science, yet we know how to explain 2+2=11 and know that 2+2=11.

BTW How come epistemology is normative?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you have any favorite food?

My favorite food is just an expression of my personal preferences. An opinion.
Me expressing my personal preferences concerning food, is not a truth claim about the world.

Remember when I told you that opinions aren't a matter of "true" or "false" in this sense?

Do you not see the difference between these two statements:

"The seasonal cycle of the earth is related to the earth's orbit and the tilt on its own axis"

and

"I like progressive metal"

Let us say, you have. Let us call that personal opinions

Yes, let's.................

I bet you know that you have personal opinions and that you can talk about them. I also bet you know how you know that? You use feelings and so on. Maybe you even have an aesthetic taste?

And none of this has anything to do with claims about the world which are within the scope of scientific inquiry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do I formulate a post as me? How do you replicate me?
I mean we can replicate the scientific theory of gravity. So how do you replicate me as you? You can't, we are both subjective in part. Gravity is objective.

Which is exactly why gravity falls within the domain of scientific inquiry and your nonsense opinions don't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

The point is that this is information which deals with the external world, with how the world works - which is the domain of science. Just because it's easy science, doesn't make it any less scientific. It is the domain of science.
...

So is there an internal world that science doesn't deal with? If so, how do you know about the internal world? You can't know that with science, because science deals with the external world and thus not with the internal world?!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Me expressing my personal preferences concerning food, is not a truth claim about the world.
...

Gravity is not the world. Gravity is in the world and so are your personal preferences concerning food.
Gravity is not about the world, gravity is in the world. So are you and your personal preferences concerning food. Or are you not in the world just like gravity?

What is a truth claim about the world as the world? What is the world, but parts of the world? Gravity is a part and so are you!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is exactly why gravity falls within the domain of scientific inquiry and your nonsense opinions don't.

So my nonsense is not in the world? Or it is in the internal world and the world is not just the external world?

Could you get a grip on what the world is?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Found this:
"This is not to say that we can’t, in a rough and ready way, distinguish between the sciences and other human activities, including other human cognitive activities; but it is to say that any such distinction can only be rough and ready. I might say, as a first approximation, that science is best understood, not as a body of knowledge, but as a kind of inquiry (so that cooking dinner, dancing, or writing a novel, isn’t science, nor pleading a case in court). At a second approximation, I would add that, since the word “science” has come to be tied to inquiry into empirical subject-matter, formal disciplines like logic or pure mathematics don’t qualify as sciences, nor normative disciplines like jurisprudence or ethics or aesthetics or epistemology). And at a third approximation, to acknowledge that the work picked out by the word “science” is far from uniform or monolithic, it makes sense to say, rather, that the disciplines we call “the sciences” are best thought of as forming a loose federation of interrelated kinds of inquiry."

So mathematics is not science, yet we know how to explain 2+2=11 and know that 2+2=11.

BTW How come epistemology is normative?

This might be of interest

The science checklist applied: Mathematics

The jury is out on it.

The way I see it, I find myself in the "math is not a science" camp.
The way I see it, I'ld say that math is a symbolic language that humans have constructed specifically to describe the natural world. It's a modeling language. And when things are encountered in the world that can't be described by math, we simply invent new math to do it. Like Newton did with calculus. He didn't "discover" calculus. He instead developed it, specifically to describe / model things that the math of his era was incapable of doing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Gravity is not the world. Gravity is in the world and so are your personal preferences concerning food.
Gravity is not about the world, gravity is in the world. So are you and your personal preferences concerning food. Or are you not in the world just like gravity?

What is a truth claim about the world as the world? What is the world, but parts of the world? Gravity is a part and so are you!

This is completely ridiculous.
I can not take this seriously.
The troll level is rising again.

If you don't understand the difference between claims concerning why objects with mass fall to earth instead of shooting into space on the one hand and the expression of an opinion concerning a personal taste on the other, then I really don't know what else to tell you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So my nonsense is not in the world? Or it is in the internal world and the world is not just the external world?

Could you get a grip on what the world is?

The universe is what it is and works the way it does, regardless of anyone's opinions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Wouldn't this mean that personal experiences of god were also science? Once we start describing personal, subjective experiences as science we are really losing the plot

You misunderstood. Again.

I didn't describe personal, subjective experiences as science. I said that reproducible subjective experiences, are sources of knowledge, albeit not applicable to all, and can be dealt with empirically.

If you can't see that if eating Brussels sprouts produces a reproducible unpleasant experience, that one can deal with that as an empirical personal truth, use that knowledge, and make rational decisions about eating to control and help maximize my experience of life, then you have nothing to offer here.

Losing the plot? Who defines the plot or when it is lost? You? Not for me you don't. Your plot is not my plot Your purpose is not mine.

Judging by your posting, your purpose is to establish yourself as an authority by simply asserting yourself as such, and demeaning others. You did that a few years back by telling me that you had read a book and declaring that others who who reject faith-based thinking have foolishly deluded themselves into believing that they are rational, that religion is not an enemy and that it deserves respect.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

I could say that I disagree, but I prefer your approach when dealing with you. I simply declare you incompetent, wrong and irrelevant. How do I know? I read a book.

Plus, I said so.

How am I doing being Augustus?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Ok fine. I'll indulge you one time.

My "agenda" is your view of science is oversimplistic and not supported by contemporary [secular] scholars.

Vague claim.

You wrote: "Science is all of our knowledge and the reliable ways of getting to it, testing it, and verifying it."

It is not 'disingenuous' to note that this is a) not the common usage of the term and b) a naive version of logical positivism that is rejected by basically all contemporary [secular] philosophers of science.

A: it actually is. Since you want 'common'here is the first definition that pops up on Google:

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Huh look at that.

B: you keep saying that but I'm not sure you know what logical positivism is within epistemology. I have given you no reason to believe I might hold that view, which I do not.

These are a couple of the disingenuous bits that made me decide to wave off your previous posts. I'm simply not interested in playing those games.

And if it were that simple, then why is there such a thing as the demarcation problem that the actual experts can't really 'solve'?

This is mostly a problem for people that would prefer some form of mysticism like astrology or creationism be included as science. Granted, it can also be argued if soft science such as psychology should qualify(I don't think psychology is science).

For the rest of us, there is falsification.

????

So you like to dive into conversations without first learning the context I see.

I already mentioned some of these.

History can't be tested or reproduced, and is thus probabilistic. Heuristics may be 'false', yet function as a genuine aid for decision making (i.e. produce net benefit over time even if not strictly 'true').

Ahh. And by what sort of methodology do you suppose they examine and compare evidences, to decide what is probably true about history...

Could it be...gasp..scientific methodology?

As to the issue of demarcation between science and 'not science', it's not as simple as saying 'all testable or reproducible knowledge is science':

Philosopher of Science Susan Haack:

Other criteria have been proposed – that real science relies on controlled experiments for example (which, however, would rule out not only anthropology and sociology, but also – most implausibly of all – astronomy). The best we might hope for, I believe, is a list of “signs of scientificity” none of which would be shared by all sciences, but each of which would be found, in some degree, in some sciences. The fact is that the term “science” simply has no very clear boundaries: the reference of the term is fuzzy, indeterminate and, not least, frequently contested.

This is not to say that we can’t, in a rough and ready way, distinguish between the sciences and other human activities, including other human cognitive activities; but it is to say that any such distinction can only be rough and ready. I might say, as a first approximation, that science is best understood, not as a body of knowledge, but as a kind of inquiry (so that cooking dinner, dancing, or writing a novel, isn’t science, nor pleading a case in court).

At a second approximation, I would add that, since the word “science” has come to be tied to inquiry into empirical subject-matter, formal disciplines like logic or pure mathematics don’t qualify as sciences, nor normative disciplines like jurisprudence or ethics or aesthetics or epistemology).

And at a third approximation, to acknowledge that the work picked out by the word “science” is far from uniform or monolithic, it makes sense to say, rather, that the disciplines we call “the sciences” are best thought of as forming a loose federation of interrelated kinds of inquiry.

But if we want to get a clear view of the place of the sciences among the many kinds of inquiry, of the place of inquiry among the many kinds of human activity, and of the interrelations among the various disciplines classified by deans and librarians as sciences, we will need to look for continuities as well as differences. For there are marked affinities between (as we say) “historical” sciences like cosmology and evolutionary biology, and what we would ordinarily classify simply as historical inquiry. There is no sharp boundary between psychology and philosophy of mind, nor between cosmology and metaphysics.45

Nor is there any very clear line between the very considerable body of knowledge that has grown out of such primal human activities as hunting, herding, farming, fishing, building, cooking, healing, midwifery, child-rearing, etc., etc., and the more systematic knowledge of agronomists, child psychologists, etc.46

Scientific inquiry is recognizably continuous with more commonplace and less systematic kinds of empirical inquiry – inquiry into the causes of spoiled crops, the design of fishing boats, the medicinal properties of herbs, etc.. It is more systematic, more refined, and more persistent; but sometimes it rediscovers, and builds on, traditional knowledge: as Linnaeus, for example, built on traditional Lap taxonomies of plants and animals; 47 or as many drugs now part of the arsenal of modern scientific medicine were derived from what were originally folk remedies.

http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Haack, Six Signs of Scientism.pdf

That's a nice opinion piece. Her last name seems to fit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The universe is what it is and works the way it does, regardless of anyone's opinions.

That version of the universe leads to an weird version of dualism.
I will try to explain to you how. Notice I am non just saying it is nonsense, I say what it is, it is dualism. Now it is not nonsense, but it doesn't quite seem to work the way you claim, that it do.

So we start with the Big Bang and we move through time. From the formation of hydrogen and helium to the first stars and later stars. Now we got enough waste flowing around with complex atoms, that when the solar system formed the stuff on earth and it apparently allowed for life to form. Now time passes again and here we are. You and I are in the universe, parts of the universe and the matter in us are from dead old stars or hydrogen back from the begin at the start.
Did you notice something, I explained something. I told you that... Not how total in then, but that this is how we are a part of the universe.
We are parts of the universe, you and I, and if we disagree then that is a part of how the universe works. That we are here, on the Internet is a part of how the matter in the universe works. Your opinions and my opinions are both parts in how the universe works.

Now ask yourself this. Humans have opinions? Where do they come from if we go back through time? Back through this long line of causes and effects in time happening with the matter in the universe? Your taste in foods are a part of the universe, unless you want to claim that they are not a part of the universe.
The universe works in such a manner, that it led to here in part and us disagreeing about how the universe works. So let me pin it out for you. The universe is not an "it". That is a function of the English language. The universe is the collection of stuff happening in time and space over time and space and are long chains of cause and effect. All of it back to the Big Bang. That humans can disagree about this is a part of how the universe works.

So here is your version reductio ad absurd. It doesn't not allows us to have different opinions about how the universe works, but we have, because you are reading about it now. In the universe, as parts of the universe you and I have different opinions about what the universe is and how it works for all the stuff happening in it, past, present and for the future, if it happens and how it happens.
So yes, it appears so, that we can have different opinions about the universe, are parts of how the universe works.

Now if you have a different POV, please explain it as I have done. Just don't claim it. "Unpack" the words, "flesh" them out, just don't claim something like this: The universe is what it is and works the way it does, regardless of anyone's opinions.

You state something and then you explain how you know it. I.e. you give reasoned arguments based on what you hope is correct knowledge. Just as I have tried to do.

So now it is your turn.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Augustus]

It is essentially scientific knowledge, yes, as it deals with forces, velocity, etc.
All things which can literally be calculated to the T.

That they are implicit in this specific simplistic case doesn't change anything about the fact that this deals with physics.

That it can be explained scientifically doesn't mean that we evaluate the situation based on the science though.

We don't incorporate explicit knowledge of physics into our reasoning about the ethical thing to do. So to say "in this case" science is guiding our thought makes little sense.

It is pretty much impossible to learn of the harm via science, anyone capable of understanding the science would have known the effects for years.

It was indeed my point. It's empirical / scientific knowledge about the world. What happens when being hit by a trolley at various speeds, is physics.

I don't need to shoot someone as an experiment, when I understand the physics of a bullet impacting a squishy human at high velocity. I already know what will happen.

That's it. The trolley thingy is just a nice illustration, because a person who is, for some bizar reason, completely oblivious to even this simple empirical understanding of physics, will not see a trolly problem. Because he will not understand the consequences of the impact, as a direct result of not having that empirical understanding of simple physics.

A lot of cases aren't as simplistic.

The point is that this is information which deals with the external world, with how the world works - which is the domain of science. Just because it's easy science, doesn't make it any less scientific. It is the domain of science.

The same is true in the trolly and the gun example though. Why does one situation rely on science but the other doesn't?

In neither situation is anyone incorporating any explicit knowledge of physics into their decision making. If we are saying that the trolley case implicitly relies on knowledge of physics so science is contributing to a moral good then shooting someone in the face also implicitly relies on knowledge of physics and is contributing to a moral harm. If they didn't have an 'empirical knowledge of physics' they would never be able to kill anyone deliberately so 'science' would be partly responsible for all murders.

We can't give science some 'credit' in one situation and not give it any 'blame' in the other situation.

A lot of cases aren't as simplistic.

The point is that this is information which deals with the external world, with how the world works - which is the domain of science. Just because it's easy science, doesn't make it any less scientific. It is the domain of science.

The simplistic cases are the problem though, this is why there is the issue of demarcation between science and non-science (which is messy and complicated). The generally accepted view is that these simplistic cases do not cross a threshold to be considered science.

I have no problem about calling numerous things science and believe that science can be very beneficial in these regards, I just take the standard view both in terms of everyday language, and also as accepted by philosophers of science, that ad hoc experiential learning from the senses is not science.

So, if a car designer incorporates crash test data and knowledge of physics into his design in a systematic manner to improve safety, we can say science helped to contribute towards a moral good.

If the US government got in psychologists and other scientists to help maximise the impact of their torture techniques, then science helped contribute to a moral harm.

But when people are simply incorporating basic experiential knowledge into their decisions (such as the trolly case) this does not meet the criteria for it to be considered science that is informing their decision.

Empirical study of the world, trying to figure out how stuff works and then test those ideas.

And in a very real sense, it is.
Empirical / scientific knowledge is essentially the same thing.
Some things just require a lot less study. Nevertheless, the understanding is still the result of empirical experimentation. Toddlers (not babies) learn these things also by empirical experimentation.

In that case, as I was saying earlier, animals do basic science as they gain empirical understanding of the world which influences their behaviour towards positive outcomes, and scientific knowledge is a cause of pretty much all evil as it is necessary to perpetrate the acts.

Why do you think the idea that empirical = scientific is widely rejected by philosophers of science?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...Granted, it can also be argued if soft science such as psychology should qualify(I don't think psychology is science).
...

You see, I was trained differently than you. Outside science, within the rest of human knowledge about how we are parts of the world, in the world and that there are other parts than us.
So here is what I always look for. Subjectivity, which is not science as according to your and others definition of science. And there it is. In all its human beauty - I don't think psychology is science - that is in the end, that game we are playing. You think differently than me and you can act upon it. You wrote your post. Now I am thinking differently than you and acting upon it. I search for and find where you are not doing science - I don't think psychology is science - that is not science. And it shows what is going on. You and the sub-culture you are a part of, claim objective authority over words based on how you subjectively think - I don't think psychology is science. You want to be right for all the limited cognitive relativism, which is a part of the universe. I don't want to be right, I want you to leave the rest of us alone relevant for where you are subjective and claim objective authority over words for which none of us have authority.

You can fight all you want religion, but don't claim that you and your subjectivity holds the Truth. You don't and neither do religion. Learn to accept that limited cognitive relativism is a part of reality.

We are playing an absurd game of: Here is how I use subjective words and claim they are objective with science and then I am right with science, because that is how the universe works.
Well, you see, I have tested that one and I have figured out how it works. It doesn't work that way, neither for you nor for me.
In all it usefulness science can't eliminate subjectivity, because that is simple to test:
You to the following effect: I have the correct way to understand the universe in only objective terms using science.
Me: No!!! You are in effect no different than some people who use the word "god" to claim they can speak with objective authority for all humans.

Here are your objective authority in all its subjectivity: I don't think psychology is science.
You really should learn to notice when you are subjective and not just spot it in others. If you have figured out, that other humans are subjective, then check yourself, before you start on debates like this. Because I know that I am subjective in part and I know that you are and I know how to spot it.

I am from the very soft end of human knowledge. Where we deal with subjectivity subjectively. You don't have to learn all that. You just have to learn to spot your own subjectivity and don't go all objective on the rest of us. Just like some religious humans do.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Augustus]

You misunderstood. Again.

I didn't describe personal, subjective experiences as science.

So when you said that 'determining your personal reality' was 'informal science' you didn't mean it was informal science?

Having those experiences, having them be reproducible and predictable, generalizing from them to generate a rule that will help anticipate and control outcomes - that's all informal science, because it's the same process done in a laboratory to generate a useful induction about physical reality, only here I am determining my personal reality so that I can navigate life as painlessly as possible, including my inner life.

You did that a few years back by telling me that you had read a book and declaring that others who who reject faith-based thinking have foolishly deluded themselves into believing that they are rational

"A book"

There is a massive amount of scientific, empirical and historical evidence that clearly shows we are not consistently rational. Unless you believe you are somehow 'special' this also applies to you.

You don't come across as being particularly rational when you reject scholarly consensus on issues you know little about simply because it is emotionally comforting to you.

Judging by your posting, your purpose is to establish yourself as an authority by simply asserting yourself as such, and demeaning others.

Then you misunderstand. I'll happily admit I'm not an expert on most things, on some of them I do know enough to be able to identify when someone knows very little, or is repeating debunked myths (hence my ability to refer to academic source materials in support). Even in these threads I've consistently acknowledged that other posters here know far more than me though.

If someone considers a creationist to be irrational for denying scholarly consensus on an issue, are they trying to establish themselves as an expert on evolution?

When encountered with such a person do you always treat their opinions with courtesy and respect, or do you maintain your right to consider them ridiculous?

On a couple of issues, you are like the creationist as you hold views rejected by an overwhelming consensus of secular scholars who have actually looked at the issues in depth and engaged with the evidence.

Given you claim to value reason and scholarship I find it somewhat ridiculous when you dismiss all of these experts out of hand as being 'apologists' or some other spurious reason that never addresses the issue of why such a consensus exists if any 13 year old anti-theist with a minimal grasp of the topic can see the opposite is self-evidently true.

The problem is not disagreement, I have perfectly civil discussions with many people here I strongly disagree with, but anti-intellectualism: the out of hand rejection of scholarly expertise for emotional reasons.

"Rationalists" are just as prone to this human failing as the rest of the species.

I could say that I disagree, but I prefer your approach when dealing with you. I simply declare you incompetent, wrong and irrelevant. How do I know? I read a book.

"Reading a wide range of scholarly literature and using it to support arguments is bad, m'kay"

How am I doing being Augustus?

3/10

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Augustus

You confirm my world view in that your posts generally fit with my model of how to understand. In fact there are parts where you a better grasp than me.

Regards
Mikkel