Why I Think That Science Kinda Sucks

[E. Nato Difficile]

Before this thread gets derailed any further, allow me to say that there are many reasons I'm an atheist. Not among them is the notion that we understand everything about the universe, as Sleeppy seemed to suggest in this post:

To say our consciousness is aware of all reality is a lie.

I'm comfortable with the notion that there are many, many things we don't currently know about "reality," however that's defined. But that's no reason to fetishize the unknown the way mystics and cranks do.

-Nato

 

[Skeptisch]

The beef is more with metaphysical naturalism rather then methodological.

The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm comfortable with the notion that there are many, many things we don't currently know about "reality," however that's defined. But that's no reason to fetishize the unknown the way mystics and cranks do.

To be fair, most people on planet earth are theist and the cranks would be those that don't venture into the abstract and subjective. As long as we don't call it science.

 

[Quiddity]

The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.

There is a reason why I'm continually ignoring you and talking to others that share your world view. You simply don't understand where science begins and ends.

 

[McBell]

I said the result. It's a label, of course, but it's also a response to a claim.

Fair enough.

 

[McBell]

There is a reason why I'm continually ignoring you and talking to others that share your world view. You simply don't understand where science begins and ends.

oh.
Ok.

cause, you know, it looked all the world like you are going out of your way to avoid addressing the points he made.

 

[Sleeppy]

Before this thread gets derailed any further, allow me to say that there are many reasons I'm an atheist. Not among them is the notion that we understand everything about the universe, as Sleeppy seemed to suggest in this post:


I'm comfortable with the notion that there are many, many things we don't currently know about "reality," however that's defined. But that's no reason to fetishize the unknown the way mystics and cranks do.

-Nato

Hopefully, you don't mean to say I was suggesting that. That would be opposite.

One thing is for sure.. Human consciousness can only take scientific realization so far. We simply don't have an all access pass.

 

[Tristesse]

Hopefully, you don't mean to say I was suggesting that. That would be opposite.

One thing is for sure.. Human consciousness can only take scientific realization so far. We simply don't have an all access pass.

The lack of an "all access pass" is not justification for believing something else that has no evidentiary support.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Hopefully, you don't mean to say I was suggesting that. That would be opposite.

I got that. I assumed you were suggesting that I (and atheists in general) believe "consciousness is aware of all reality."

I asked who had ever said that.

You never answered.

One thing is for sure.. Human consciousness can only take scientific realization so far. We simply don't have an all access pass.

And it's also for sure that opening the floodgates of mysticism and woo would do to scientific inquiry what Lysenko did to the Soviet agricultural program.

So we're back to methodological naturalism, like it or lump it.

-Nato

 

[Quiddity]

oh.
Ok.

cause, you know, it looked all the world like you are going out of your way to avoid addressing the points he made.

Your sentence is incoherent so I wasn't sure what you were trying to say.

Sleepy and Nato are different people.

 

[Skeptisch]

There is a reason why I'm continually ignoring you ...

Actually I am glad you ignore me.

All I hope to do with my occasional appearances on RF is to animate a reader or two to give reason a chance to find the truth. Your brain is wired for Abrahamic faith and you would not be a true believer if you behaved differently. :bunny:Happy Easter to everyone.

 

[Sleeppy]

The lack of an "all access pass" is not justification for believing something else that has no evidentiary support.

Not at all. But, who's to say we have the same pass?

 

[Sleeppy]

I got that. I assumed you were suggesting that I (and atheists in general) believe "consciousness is aware of all reality."

I asked who had ever said that.

You never answered.

Well.. because the comment wasn't directed at anyone. So, it wasn't with any one person in mind.

But I can still take the statement and apply it to you. If you don't believe that your consciousness is aware of all reality, then why assert anything? Is your atheism asserted? Obviously anything further should be questioned too.. So, why deny anything either?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Well.. because the comment wasn't directed at anyone. So, it wasn't with any one person in mind.

But I can still take the statement and apply it to you. If you don't believe that your consciousness is aware of all reality, then why assert anything? Is your atheism asserted? Obviously anything further should be questioned too.. So, why deny anything either?

You're not making sense. All a skeptical perspective does is give us a basis for assessing the validity of claims. Inductive reasoning assumes that new information could change what we currently believe. Why should we reserve judgment on anything simply because we realize we're not aware of all reality?

-Nato

 

[Sleeppy]

You're not making sense. All a skeptical perspective does is give us a basis for assessing the validity of claims.

How do you know that your skeptical perspective is always effective?

Inductive reasoning assumes that new information could change what we currently believe. Why should we reserve judgment on anything simply because we realize we're not aware of all reality?

-Nato

Because not being aware of all reality also means that you don't know where you are in it. Perhaps.. in another space and time, a skeptical perspective isn't effective at all.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

How do you know that your skeptical perspective is always effective?

I don't. I simply realize that any certainty is provisional.

Because not being aware of all reality also means that you don't know where you are in it. Perhaps.. in another space and time, a skeptical perspective isn't effective at all.

That could very well be. I'm pretty sure psychologists say there are two types of people: those who are more comfortable believing a lie, and those more comfortable with denying a truth. I admit I'd rather deny a truth until there was sufficient evidence to affirm it, rather than believe a falsehood in the absence of evidence because it pandered to my vanity.

-Nato

 

[McBell]

How do you know that your skeptical perspective is always effective?

Who has made the claim that it is?

You really like strawmen, don't you?

Because not being aware of all reality also means that you don't know where you are in it.

Fair enough.

however, how does just making **** up as you go along help one know where they are in it?

Seems to me that you are merely chasing your tail.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't. I simply realize that any certainty is provisional.


That could very well be. I'm pretty sure psychologists say there are two types of people: those who are more comfortable believing a lie, and those more comfortable with denying a truth. I admit I'd rather deny a truth until there was sufficient evidence to affirm it, rather than believe a falsehood in the absence of evidence because it pandered to my vanity.

-Nato

Yea. But quite often things need to be moved or converted.. so that things can become evident.

 

[Sleeppy]

Who has made the claim that it is?

You really like strawmen, don't you?

I've heard the term before, but now I know what it means.

No one had to make the claim. I try to push things out of the way that would block a good view of my argument. As we can now see, traveling away from one fixed point (like a skeptical perspective) to another, may actually prove scientific as well. Hence, "How do you know.."

Fair enough.

however, how does just making **** up as you go along help one know where they are in it?

Seems to me that you are merely chasing your tail.

I doubt we can know.. And I don't think we should make things up. But why not do some exploring? Maybe even a little speculation.

 

[Quiddity]

Actually I am glad you ignore me.

All I hope to do with my occasional appearances on RF is to animate a reader or two to give reason a chance to find the truth. Your brain is wired for Abrahamic faith and you would not be a true believer if you behaved differently. :bunny:Happy Easter to everyone.

Is it wired this way because I believe in the easter bunny or because I disagree with you? Are only some humans immune to this?

Please.

Happy Bunny Day.