You Don't Understand...

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think I'm formulating this correctly, we'll see if you can infer my meaning through what I think is a decimation of what you presented:

"If Barnaby intentionally speaks untruth, then he is a liar." True or false? True
"If Barnaby unintentionally speaks untruth, then he is a liar." True or false? False.

"If Barnaby knows his claims are false, then he cannot be trusted." True or false? True.
"If Barnaby does not know his claims are false, then he can be trusted." True or false? False?
(Is this a false negative or just my ineptitude to properly formulate such an argument?)


Edit: Added this section to clarify intent and method.
In this ambiguous scenario, Barnaby is not a ¹liar but cannot or should not be trusted due to naivete.

My intention here, is to reveal the value and importance of having institutions that reward members credentials if they persevere and achieve the standards upheld by its laureates. Even if he's honest, you cannot trust a layman like myself, only consider his position.

¹In that a lie is a statement known to be false and intentionally made to manipulate or trick.

Yes it is important, and in the short term politics can sometimes bend institutions and bribe individuals. There are liars, sometimes, and it takes time to discover their purposeful misrepresentations. On the other hand, most people don't want to research based upon lies; so research generally moves in the direction of honesty. For example: a government might try to cover up and block a new kind of technology, however people will continue to seek new technologies. Another example: A scientist may be paid to testify that leaded gas is not dangerous, however in the long term at least one other scientist would be likely to call them out on it -- since it would not be consistent with their research results.

 

[Kenny]

Perhaps it is that you misunderstand the meaning of straw man arguments and confuse them with questions for you to answer to help clarify your position.

I haven't seen any straw man arguments.

I knew this had to come So common a response when someone hits the nail on the head.

 

[Kenny]

I do not know of any claim of guidance that has held up nor seen any evidence offered that would support such claims, so refuted is the applicable description.

IYHO.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks. Therefore, that's all I want to hear.

I'm shocked! I would be even more shocked if I thought you understood my response.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

IYHO.

It is not an opinion. If you know of any sound, objective evidence for the existence of a deity/designer, you need to get that out so that others will know and you can get your fame as the first person to ever provide it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I knew this had to come So common a response when someone hits the nail on the head.

I have no idea what that means. Cryptic. I have seen no straw man arguments in response to the OP.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Thanks. Therefore, that's all I want to hear.
Why are they afraid to admit it?
Is it because they accuse religion of having different interpretations of scripture... using that as a basis to say it is no good?

Unfortunately for religion, we human beings who do not believe in the same things cannot literally go to the source of our frustrations with misinterpretation and observe for ourselves, gather data, and re-assess. For example, one person says that God sending bears to maul a bunch of people over some words said about balding is fine, because the people who were mauled were of at least some certain age, and obviously didn't believe in God or they wouldn't have been hurting poor Elisha's feelings. Whereas another of us might say that it is cruel and evil to send bears out to maul people just for insulting someone. Which of us is correct? Can we ask God, do you think? Can we witness the bear mauling, or listen to the actual words and see the actions of the people who were mauled, to see if there wasn't something even more nefarious going on? Nope. We don't get that luxury.

However - within the purview of science, if someone doesn't like the findings, assumptions, or conclusions wrought by a fellow scientist's research, do you know what they can literally do? If they have the time, equipment and desire, then they can reproduce the experiment, in full, and observe for themselves exactly what there is to see. They can try and look for the exact findings of the other researcher, or they can make a plan to falsify them and see if that works out. If not, perhaps they only reinforce the assumptions and conclusions made by the previous researcher. Perhaps they come to the same conclusions. But the main point is... they have something to literally turn to in order to get concrete answers. You don't have this in religion. You don't. And that is, most assuredly, where religion falls down.

 

[Kenny]

It is not an opinion. If you know of any sound, objective evidence for the existence of a deity/designer, you need to get that out so that others will know and you can get your fame as the first person to ever provide it.

If you look at a painting, you know there is a designer
If you look at a building, you know there is a designer
If you look at a body and realize that there is no nose under the armpit, no eyes under your feet, no hands coming out of your back, et al

you KNOW there is a designer.

Now... you may have a different viewpoint but it would be your opinion.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have to ask @nPeace ....has anyone here ever said scientists never make assumptions or interpret data? If so, I'd be very interested to know who did.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you look at a painting, you know there is a designer
If you look at a building, you know there is a designer
If you look at a body and realize that there is no nose under the armpit, no eyes under your feet, no hands coming out of your back, et al

you KNOW there is a designer.

Now... you may have a different viewpoint but it would be your opinion.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up ID creationism. No actual evidence that anything in the biological realm is designed, just appeals to inapt analogies.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

If you look at a body and realize that there is no nose under the armpit, no eyes under your feet, no hands coming out of your back, et al

Do you think an abomination such as the one you described here could survive in the harsh elements of nature, against the pressure of predators and food sources? This is a poor argument for your aims.

 

[Kenny]

Yeah, that pretty much sums up ID creationism. No actual evidence that anything in the biological realm is designed, just appeals to inapt analogies.

All I am saying is that you offer viewpoints and your statement certainly didn't invalidate mine.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

But the main point is... they have something to literally turn to in order to get concrete answers. You don't have this in religion.

This isn't necessarily correct, per se... Similar to individuals claiming similar experiences while under the influence of DMT, individuals who exercise tantric practices observe similar results from breathing and meditation methods. There may be other examples, but my point is that albeit not material evidence, there are intuitive(?) confirmations of their findings.

Edit: Just thought of a couple Abrahamic sects that I can present with similar claims: The Hesychasts of Orthodoxy, and the Whirling Dervishes of Islam.

 

[Kenny]

Do you think an abomination such as the one you described here could survive in the harsh elements of nature, against the pressure of predators and food sources? This is a poor argument for your aims.

But chance would have at least attempted it.

What drives it to be where it is optimal? Chance?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

But chance would have at least attempted it.

Actually... due to the graphic nature, I will not be posting any here.

But, if you would look up 'deformities' of humans and animals, there has been a wide array of recorded absurdities produced from natural conception and birth. They tend not to survive. Perhaps these are the genome attempting to adapt to environment and testing variations of the code to produce a trial-and-error style of survivalism.

 

[Bathos Logos]

This isn't necessarily correct, per se... Similar to individuals claiming similar experiences while under the influence of DMT, individuals who exercise tantric practices observe similar results from breathing and meditation methods. There may be other examples, but my point is that albeit not material evidence, there are intuitive(?) confirmations of their findings.

Edit: Just thought of a couple Abrahamic sects that I can present with similar claims: The Hesychasts of Orthodoxy, and the Whirling Dervishes of Islam.

Not much to this, honestly. Even as some portion of people may confirm such findings, you will have others who experience nothing like it - and this due to differences in physiology and how the body/mind react to the substances. And so, all you can do is hope to get a fair generalization. Anesthesiologists have to contend with all sorts of physiology-driven issues, as an example. You can only really rely on your own, personal experience with something like this remaining similar, especially if you have done it multiple times with the same results. Even then there is no guarantee. As your body/brain get used to it or there is some tolerance built, the experience changes. A scientist would never try something out on someone and claim "this is how it will work for everyone". No one does that. it would be insane to do so because there are too many other factors involved. But do you know what I bet you would agree to? The idea that if you could conduct a large enough study and compare a large enough base of individuals who experienced various effects, and could cross-check and compare hundreds of properties of each individual's physiology, that you could find similarities in experience and body/mind/lifestyle make-up, such that the material properties of the things in play (human bodies and their chemical contents) would reveal the reasons why various people have the experiences they do. And there you have it.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Not much to this, honestly. Even as some portion of people may confirm such findings, you will have others who experiences nothing like it - and this due to differences in physiology and how the body/mind react to the substances. And so, all you can do is hope to get a fair generalization. Anesthesiologists have to contend with all sorts of physiology-driven issues, as an example. You can only really rely on your own, personal experience with something remaining similar, especially if you have done it multiple times with the same results. Even then there is no guarantee. As your body/brain get used to it or there is some tolerance built, the experience changes. A scientist would never try something out on someone and claim "this is how it will work for everyone". No one does that. it would be insane to do so because there are too many other factors involved. But do you know what I bet you would agree to? The idea that if you could conduct a large enough study and compare a large enough base of individuals who experienced various effects, and could cross-check and compare hundreds of properties of each individual's physiology, that you could find similarities in experience and body/mind/lifestyle make-up, such that the material properties of the things in play (human bodies and their chemical contents) would reveal the reasons why various people have the experiences they do. Boom.

Aye, I cannot attest to the examples I provide, as I have not even attempted to experience them personally.

I would presume you're correct that they be more subjective than advertised, however your example of the struggle of the anesthesiologist makes me wonder if the two 'fields' aren't closer related than some may want to admit. Neurology and theology.

On that note, even if it's all in one's head... it seems like a lot of people are driven to create for themselves self-fulfilling prophesies which were at first only in their head.
Positive example: Motivational speakers and sports stars would tell you that they visualize the outcome they desire, and it manifests into reality.
Negative example: Someone in the city entering the subway, worried about being the target of thieves, has their head on a swivel and eyes wide like a nonnative, making them the prey to thieves.
Stranger Things™? Than humans? Are we sure?

 

[Bathos Logos]

I would presume you're correct that they be more subjective than advertised, however your example of the struggle of the anesthesiologist makes me wonder if the two 'fields' aren't closer related than some may want to admit. Neurology and theology.

So you want to compare "neurology" and "theology" with the given topics from either realm being "anesthetics" and "DMT experiences". What is it, in your estimation, that makes "DMT" a specifically "theological" device? Can you please enlighten me on this score? Last I checked DMT was a hallucinogenic, mind altering substance. How does this fit in the realm of theology specifically? Basically - I am trying to point out a glaring bias in your thinking here that has you trying to conflate a medical field with belief in God because "drugs". All so you can push science closer to being a "belief system" like so many others before you have been wont to do.

It becomes harder to take you seriously the more I read from you.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

It becomes harder to take you seriously the more I read from you.

You needn't take me seriously, I'm merely philosophizing about the possibilities of the unsubstantiated nature of the two fields.

Perhaps in the future we have a full catalogue of the effects different forms of meditation/prayer/posing has on distinctive physiologies and neurological makeups¹. Then we can contrast those findings against the relative effects of pharmaceuticals. IF the results could be found as congruent, it might lead to a higher understanding, or at least an alternative form of medicine.

¹We have mapped the brainwave frequencies of some Yogi's of Hinduism, I'm pretty sure the findings were inconclusive or otherwise of little validity. I found the idea of the study novel and intriguing none-the-less.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Perhaps in the future we have a full catalogue of the effects different forms of meditation/prayer/posing has on distinctive physiologies and neurological makeups¹. Then we can contrast those findings against the relative effects of pharmaceuticals. IF the results could be found as congruent, it might lead to a higher understanding, or at least an alternative form of medicine.

This would make sense to attempt to observe/discern, and I would agree it likely that certain patterns could be developed such that experts could then suggest or advise on certain courses of action to take that were most probable to have effect with the type (physiological or psychological) of person being treated. But again, the data would be the driving force here. Not personal experience or some explicitly "spiritual" component.