Is Science Necessary...

[IndigoChild5559]

I am not sure what you mean by begging the question. I understand the term, but I am not sure why you think it applies in this particular case.

Begging the question means that your answer has assumed the truth of what you are supposed to be arguing for. You have left the question unresolved as to where the foundation being a good person comes from -- your answer simply assumes it.

 

[ppp]

Begging the question means that your answer has assumed the truth of what you are supposed to be arguing for. You have left the question unresolved as to where the foundation being a good person comes from -- your answer simply assumes it.

I said I understood what making the question means, but thanks for the recap. I don't think you are applying it correctly. In order for begging the question to be applicable, I would have to be either explicitly or implicitly restating one of the premises and I'm not.

You are simply begging the question. Why should the well being of other people be your concern?

We are social animals and the healthier and more stable our society is the better it is for us.

Begging the question. Why should you care about that?

That is not begging the question. Begging the question would be if you had asked, why should the well-being of others should be of concern to you, and I had answered some equivalent of because the well-being of others should be my concern.

But that's not what I said. Not even in the abstract.

I said that the well-being of others is of concern to me because my well-being is contingent upon the well-being of society which is comprised of those others.

So, no begging the question. And what you should be asking at this point is, Why, Policy, do you care about your own well-being.

To which my response would be, it doesn't matter. It is a fact of reality that I care about my well-being in the same way that it is a fact that I have brown hair. There is no justification needed for it. It is simply a fact of my nature.

 

[rational experiences]

Above ground pressure on ground. Glaciers. Glaciers melt. Sea pressure said science is pretty much the same ice or no ice.

He however doesn't use evaporation of water as the heavens gases return heated not cooled. Not as cooled by ice mass.

So above us takes up what's below. What was never ground life. Water mass.

One model science of men. Ground dusts. Machine mass recooled by water mass. Fake one first position.

Reacting using water mass. Fake two position.

Biology doesn't live in the water mass science uses.

His gas thesis is way above us. Heated gases then coldest gases. Heavens only.

Nothing to do with ground life. As frozen water is frozen water.

Science however theories chemistry of why water freezes. Another lie.

Owns three points of lying in science.

Sea pressure changes as men of science taught it lifts off. Mass evaporated to contradict UFO ark mass accumulated caused.

Volcanic underground pressure lost on bare naked earth and in sea pressures opens carpenter sacrifice cold sealed carpenter pre sealed as tectonic returns opened.

Plates drop cities beneath water not by flood by plate drop only.

Massive flooding goes into underground tunnels cools lava. Reseals.

Attack stops.

Was when UFO landed hit Ararat.

Melt stopped.
Disintegration of mountains stopped.
Earthquakes stopped.

Flooding continued easing.

Water pressure returned to earth.

Mass of ice gone. Rebuilt over cooling seasons. The ice earth saviour was reborn said science.

As ice returns end of year. If snap freeze data says around December then it is proof.

Is science necessary?

Only if it supports a holy life by all terms. Heavens spirit holy. Holy dusts holy. Holy water.

Hence invention not changing earth was said holy. Like building transmitting stone dust towers for ground holding magnetism. Growing crops with weeds so weeds take the bugs.

The types of wisdom wise.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You have left the question unresolved as to where the foundation being a good person comes from -- your answer simply assumes it.

Who is a good person? Different societies will answer the question differently. For example, first cousin or second marriage is prohibited in Hinduism. Pharaohs married their sisters. So, it is society which lays out the rules and measures the actions of a person accordingly. No God involved here.

 

[Sheldon]

We are social animals and the healthier and more stable our society is the better it is for us.

Begging the question.

I am not sure what you mean by begging the question. I understand the term, but I am not sure why you think it applies in this particular case.

Begging the question means that your answer has assumed the truth of what you are supposed to be arguing for. You have left the question unresolved as to where the foundation being a good person comes from -- your answer simply assumes it.

Which one of his assertions are you claiming is an unevidenced assumption, that we are social animals, or that we are better of in stable societies? Only I am dubious, as I think objective evidence can be demonstrated for both those assertions.

"good person" is an entirely subjective term. Acceptable behaviours, or right and wrong are usually based on societal consensus, at least in a free society. The idea that violent acts like rape and murder require a deity or religious beliefs is demonstrably false. All one needs is empathy, and this would be a necessary trait of any animal that has evolved to live in societal groups.

 

[1213]

Um, by being interested and educated?
I went to college, studied and remember?
Im a curious person who reads?
...

I want to see the real evidence and proof for it, not just hearsay rumors.

 

[Audie]

I want to see the real evidence and proof for it, not just hearsay rumors.

Charming that you would call what i say
"Hearsay rumours". *

If someone cared to know whether they actually
know more than any researcher on earth,
cared if they are slandering the god they claim
to worship, they could
A. Not just assume i am lying
B. THINK a minute that of course the chemistry of each volcano is different as i illustrated
C. Try investigating for themselves

The ash btw is not a very significant part
of how ice core dating is done, the start being just to count layers, like tree rings.
Finding ash from Vesuvias at layer AD 79
is just a cross correlation to show the counting technique is dead on.

I read recently that the height of stupidity is to dismiss something one knows nothing about.

I disagree, as there are things worse.
Id go with " very foolish".

* try applying this term to religious belief
where it fits. See " faith".
What i said is something that is there to be proved correct with samples, microscope,
Xray chromatography...as direct and sure as
proving there is salt in the ocean.

 

[Audie]

Which one of his assertions are you claiming is an unevidenced assumption, that we are social animals, or that we are better of in stable societies? Only I am dubious, as I think objective evidence can be demonstrated for both those assertions.

"good person" is an entirely subjective term. Acceptable behaviours, or right and wrong are usually based on societal consensus, at least in a free society. The idea that violent acts like rape and murder require a deity or religious beliefs is demonstrably false. All one needs is empathy, and this would be a necessary trait of any animal that has evolved to live in societal groups.

A dog will go break up a cat fight.
This stuff is not so freaking mysterious

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I said I understood what making the question means, but thanks for the recap. I don't think you are applying it correctly. In order for begging the question to be applicable, I would have to be either explicitly or implicitly restating one of the premises and I'm not.







That is not begging the question. Begging the question would be if you had asked, why should the well-being of others should be of concern to you, and I had answered some equivalent of because the well-being of others should be my concern.

But that's not what I said. Not even in the abstract.

I said that the well-being of others is of concern to me because my well-being is contingent upon the well-being of society which is comprised of those others.

So, no begging the question. And what you should be asking at this point is, Why, Policy, do you care about your own well-being.

To which my response would be, it doesn't matter. It is a fact of reality that I care about my well-being in the same way that it is a fact that I have brown hair. There is no justification needed for it. It is simply a fact of my nature.

Your solution assumes that we SHOULD morally do things which are healthy for us and which are better for society. It ASSUMES. It is therefore begging the question. There are plenty of people who think they are in this world for themselves and don't need to worry about society and they are fine with their health the way it is. Your suggestion simply doesn't give a reason why they are wrong.

 

[ppp]

Your solution assumes that we SHOULD morally do things which are healthy for us and which are better for society.

It absolutely does not. Re read the last paragraph.

"To which my response would be, it doesn't matter. It is a fact of reality that I care about my well-being in the same way that it is a fact that I have brown hair. There is no justification needed for it. It is simply a fact of my nature."

There is absolutely no ought or obligation in that paragraph. If you think I'm saying that I ought to care about my well-being. Then you must also think that I am saying that I ought to have brown hair.

But I am not.

Neither of those things are oughts. They are only is.

 

[Sheldon]

Your solution assumes that we SHOULD morally do things which are healthy for us and which are better for society.

That's not what I read, you may want to re-read his post.

There are plenty of people who think they are in this world for themselves and don't need to worry about society and they are fine with their health the way it is.

Wow, plenty you say.

Compared to how many who do not? That's the trouble with made up claims, even vague ones, they are meaningless.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It absolutely does not. Re read the last paragraph.

"To which my response would be, it doesn't matter. It is a fact of reality that I care about my well-being in the same way that it is a fact that I have brown hair. There is no justification needed for it. It is simply a fact of my nature."

There is absolutely no ought or obligation in that paragraph. If you think I'm saying that I ought to care about my well-being. Then you must also think that I am saying that I ought to have brown hair.

But I am not.

Neither of those things are oughts. They are only is.

You are mistaken if you think everyone has a drive to take good care of themselves. The world is full of people who drink, smoke, and throw away money gambling. It is simply not analogous to having brown hair.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's not what I read, you may want to re-read his post.



Wow, plenty you say.

Compared to how many who do not? That's the trouble with made up claims, even vague ones, they are meaningless.

The website I just googled said about 4% of the population is sociopathic. That's a lot of people.

 

[ppp]

You are mistaken if you think everyone has a drive to take good care of themselves.

Well since I don't think that, your objection is not on point. You are objecting to someone else's position again.

It seems to me that you keep going off track by trying to argue against what you have been conditioned by your beliefs or by your co-believers to think you know of my position must be. You wouldn't have to keep making so many fault starts if you were respond to what I say, rather than to what you anticipate.

 

[ppp]

There are plenty of people who think they are in this world for themselves and don't need to worry about society and they are fine with their health the way it is. Your suggestion simply doesn't give a reason why they are wrong.

The website I just googled said about 4% of the population is sociopathic. That's a lot of people.

You seem to think that just because someone is a sociopath that they think that they do not need to concern themself about about society or their health. That is neither empathic, nor is it true.

"Stigma, prejudice and discrimination against people with mental illness can be subtle or it can be obvious—but no matter the magnitude, it can lead to harm. People with mental illness are marginalized and discriminated against in various ways, but understanding what that looks like and how to address and eradicate it can help."
-- [Stigma and Discrimination]

 

[Sheldon]

The website I just googled said about 4% of the population is sociopathic. That's a lot of people.

So 4% is plenty then, now if someone said the vast majority of, and was referring to 96%, would you baulk at that?

I think Policy's original claim seemed credible, and still does, and I think your repudiation of it involving a claim for "plenty of people" seems to have now embarrassingly settled on 4%.

Henceforth let it be known that a 4% demographic can be (mis) represented as "plenty of people",

Plenty of people find your claim hilarious. If you press me I will start a poll, and I am not a gambler by nature.

 

[metis]

Superstition is a problem that everyone has as part of the human condition. No one is immune. The best we can do is be vigilant, and to be ready to be skeptical of our own conclusions.

But much, much less so if one is trained to be skeptical and lives it most of their lives as such. I cannot think of one thing that I'm superstitious about, and I've lived with myself for 77 years this March.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is not a matter of 'necessity of science in human existence. Science has been simply an intimate part of the nature of human existence since the trial and error process where the earliest ancestors tested different rocks to find the best rocks to make tools, and traded the best rocks to other primate ancestors. Other primate relatives living today are known to use the simple trial and error methods to determine simple tools to acquire food.

 

[wellwisher]

Science is important for defining outer or physical reality. However, it is not optimized for defining the inner reality of the human psyche. Psychology, which is considered soft science, is trying but is is still in the rational polytheism stage and cannot yet form rational monotheism; unified theory. The god;premises of Freud is different from Adler; rational polytheism.

This limitation is because the operating system of the human brain cannot be viewed from the outside. We cannot take out a disk or thumbnail drive, from the brain, so all the scientists can directly see the code for themselves.

The investigation of the brain's operating systems requires introspective methods; seen from the inside, which are not fully condoned by the philosophy of science. This will be called subjective even if object to each person. The science philosophy is restricted to the outer world via sensory systems, but not to the mind's eye and introspective observations.

Religion is better at that, since meditation and prayer are both designed to enter the operating system, with prayer unique types of command lines. The ancients had the ego needed to do this introspection analysis, but they lacked the platform of science to make the standard of living high enough, so we could have the luxury to come back and explore this final frontier, that is still out of the reach of the current philosophy of science.

 

[metis]

Science is important for defining outer or physical reality. However, it is not optimized for defining the inner reality of the human psyche. Psychology, which is considered soft science, is trying but is is still in the rational polytheism stage and cannot yet form rational monotheism; unified theory. The god;premises of Freud is different from Adler; rational polytheism.

This limitation is because the operating system of the human brain cannot be viewed from the outside. We cannot take out a disk or thumbnail drive, from the brain, so all the scientists can directly see the code for themselves.

The investigation of the brain's operating systems requires introspective methods; seen from the inside, which are not fully condoned by the philosophy of science. This will be called subjective even if object to each person. The science philosophy is restricted to the outer world via sensory systems, but not to the mind's eye and introspective observations.

Religion is better at that, since meditation and prayer are both designed to enter the operating system, with prayer unique types of command lines. The ancients had the ego needed to do this introspection analysis, but they lacked the platform of science to make the standard of living high enough, so we could have the luxury to come back and explore this final frontier, that is still out of the reach of the current philosophy of science.

IMO, well said in general, but I don't agree with psychology as being polytheistic or with that kind of orientation.

All science and all religion have their limitations, therefore the blending of the two together makes a great deal of sense to me. You might note my mentioning "naturalistic" at the top of my posts with my "Religion".