Existential Stuff Up!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2014, 04:52 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2014 05:01 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(13-10-2014 04:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-10-2014 04:44 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  "Strawman' is sometimes used to denigrate an assertion being made that is difficult to verify while not being impossible in a deeper existential sense. One need not be "anti science" to hold that science is not the all and everything of human understanding. You quote an aside by me, not my definition as presented in the first paragraph.........

I responded to what you posted. If you don't mean it, don't post it.

You were eclectic and equivocated, picking out a bit to suit yourself.
I must say your rigid stance to be always 'right' is becoming a bit annoying.
Also your reference to "unintelligence" minus an explanation as to why, tends
to border on an ad hominem grasping at straws. No need to be so curt when arguing over brief comments.
over short assertions!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(13-10-2014 04:52 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(13-10-2014 04:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  I responded to what you posted. If you don't mean it, don't post it.

You were eclectic and equivocated, picking out a bit to suit yourself.
I must say your rigid stance to be always 'right' is becoming a bit annoying.
Also your reference to "unintelligence" minus an explanation as to why, tends
to border on an ad hominem grasping at straws. No need to be so curt when arguing over brief comments.
over short assertions!

Look, actual scientism is exceedingly rare. The term really is used by the non-scientific as a conversation stopper.

It's almost always a strawman.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
So if a religious scientist, and there are some, ponders on universal possibilities that cannot be literally observed, weighed, measured, and subjected to peer review, he is in cloud cuckoo land and any argument postulated will most probably entail straw manning?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(13-10-2014 05:12 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  So if a religious scientist, and there are some, ponders on universal possibilities that cannot be literally observed, weighed, measured, and subjected to peer review, he is in cloud cuckoo land and any argument postulated will most probably entail straw manning?

Where did that come from? If he tries to represent that as a scientific argument then he will be rightfully criticized.
People are free to speculate and philosophize to their heart's content. It's just not science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(13-10-2014 05:12 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  So if a religious scientist, and there are some, ponders on universal possibilities that cannot be literally observed, weighed, measured, and subjected to peer review, he is in cloud cuckoo land and any argument postulated will most probably entail straw manning?

It may or not be straw-manning but if there is no way to actual demonstrate the truth of any hypothesis arrived at by pondering then how could you ever determine the validity? Such ponderings may lead to new things to investigate but without that investigation they may be interesting or amusing but, in the end, are just so much hand-waving.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 05:39 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(13-10-2014 05:21 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-10-2014 05:12 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  So if a religious scientist, and there are some, ponders on universal possibilities that cannot be literally observed, weighed, measured, and subjected to peer review, he is in cloud cuckoo land and any argument postulated will most probably entail straw manning?

It may or not be straw-manning but if there is no way to actual demonstrate the truth of any hypothesis arrived at by pondering then how could you ever determine the validity? Such ponderings may lead to new things to investigate but without that investigation they may be interesting or amusing but, in the end, are just so much hand-waving.

If an argument is constructed logically, relevant to grammar, with one premise correctly following the next, than the result will be valid, not necessarily, true.
To be true the premises need to be objectively true, that is, observed tested etc.
Any truth, while pragmatically strong, relevant to the time, gains its truth in consequence of the now factor and varying degrees of probability, some very high.

Other truths may exist, minus scientific proofs, based on speculative insights, wonderment, sense of awe, etc and while not amenable to specialised testings need not be fobbed off as lunacy and the like. My argument is not anti science, it is anti science dogma. You might care to have a look at Kuhn and Popper relevant to science and logic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2014, 05:49 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(13-10-2014 05:39 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Other truths may exist, minus scientific proofs, based on speculative insights, wonderment, sense of awe, etc and while not amenable to specialised testings need not be fobbed off as lunacy and the like.

I did not equate them with lunacy but I do not recognize them as "truths" if they can not be demonstrated. They may be many things, including inspiring and useful, but to call them "truths" is misleading at best.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(13-10-2014 05:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-10-2014 05:39 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Other truths may exist, minus scientific proofs, based on speculative insights, wonderment, sense of awe, etc and while not amenable to specialised testings need not be fobbed off as lunacy and the like.


I did not equate them with lunacy but I do not recognize them as "truths" if they can not be demonstrated. They may be many things, including inspiring and useful, but to call them "truths" is misleading at best.

Scientific 'truth' too may be false by virtue of expanding time, confused initial first premise, unconsidered variables, and even fudging.
Some hard line atheists give secular 'truth' an unjustifiable degree of on going and insular certainty.
In this regard they are not unlike some of the extremely dogmatic fundamentalist
religionists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(14-10-2014 05:02 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Scientific 'truth' too may be false by virtue of expanding time, confused initial first premise, unconsidered variables, and even fudging.
Some hard line atheists give secular 'truth' an unjustifiable degree of on going and insular certainty.
In this regard they are not unlike some of the extremely dogmatic fundamentalist
religionists.

I completely agree that scientific truths can't be considered the absolute, final word. That level of certainty isn't reasonable to expect and why I had the word in quotes. The difference between scientific truths and religious truths is that there is evidence for the scientific truths which provides a rational basis for accepting them.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2014 05:38 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Existential Stuff Up!
(14-10-2014 05:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-10-2014 05:02 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Scientific 'truth' too may be false by virtue of expanding time, confused initial first premise, unconsidered variables, and even fudging.
Some hard line atheists give secular 'truth' an unjustifiable degree of on going and insular certainty.
In this regard they are not unlike some of the extremely dogmatic fundamentalist
religionists.

I completely agree that scientific truths can't be considered the absolute, final word. That level of certainty isn't reasonable to expect and why I had the word in quotes. The difference between scientific truths and religious truths is that there is evidence for the scientific truths which provides a rational basis for accepting them.

In accepting science we also accept where the evidence is seen to lead us.
Entrepreneurs, multi- nationals,and huge corporations are greatly empowered to mould us as they will by utilizing scientific methods to further create a whole host of artificial needs some of which are highly dangerous for our state of well being.
Science is of course morally neutral, but when it is used to serve nefarious interests, arguably it may lead to a blatant laisez faire capitalism, where we are created as underlings to serve our masters. The tobacco Industry is but one example here.
The gods of fashion, food, porn, gambling, drugs, ego, power hunger et al walk arrogantly along side those of all our religions....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: