False Dichotomy Fallacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2013, 08:57 AM
RE: False Dichotomy Fallacy
That refried Platonism is the western philosophical tradition. What you are missing is that the world manifests in the human consciousness and that it is therefore metaphysical from the getgo. For most people who never question the constancy of the intersubjective, such as modern scientists, the problem doesn`t seem to occur to them. The idea of a whale resides within the human intellect until it is realized through the knowledge of whale, from which point it constitutes our sensory interpretation of a whale cognitively and intellectually.
Therefore the conflict is between the general and the particular, the abstraction and the concrete. Religion can be in the debate but certainly not the mystics who are engaging in it now. What bugs me is that both sides are missing the real problem that this debate has brought to light again. I have no problem understanding that mystics who believe God writes books are difficult to engage in debate, but why there seems to be an equation between science and materialism these days I really dislike. The world is not readily available for analysis but depending on systems of interpretation like language, logic and science to make sure we`re all talking about the same thing. But this doesn`t mean that we understand anything, which is the error of many materialists, precisely because we construct reality in our meeting with it.
100% scientific truth does not exist as a result of these problems, yet if you talk to a materialist they sound like it not only exists but that it exists all over the place. This is a discredited strain of science and you should read Popper if you want to find out why in more detail.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2013, 09:16 AM
RE: False Dichotomy Fallacy
(16-07-2013 08:57 AM)Skulb Wrote:  That refried Platonism is the western philosophical tradition. What you are missing is that the world manifests in the human consciousness and that it is therefore metaphysical from the getgo. For most people who never question the constancy of the intersubjective, such as modern scientists, the problem doesn`t seem to occur to them. The idea of a whale resides within the human intellect until it is realized through the knowledge of whale, from which point it constitutes our sensory interpretation of a whale cognitively and intellectually.
Therefore the conflict is between the general and the particular, the abstraction and the concrete. Religion can be in the debate but certainly not the mystics who are engaging in it now. What bugs me is that both sides are missing the real problem that this debate has brought to light again. I have no problem understanding that mystics who believe God writes books are difficult to engage in debate, but why there seems to be an equation between science and materialism these days I really dislike. The world is not readily available for analysis but depending on systems of interpretation like language, logic and science to make sure we`re all talking about the same thing. But this doesn`t mean that we understand anything, which is the error of many materialists, precisely because we construct reality in our meeting with it.
100% scientific truth does not exist as a result of these problems, yet if you talk to a materialist they sound like it not only exists but that it exists all over the place. This is a discredited strain of science and you should read Popper if you want to find out why in more detail.

Care to present the evidence for your claim that an idea of a whale resides within the human intellect until it is realized? Oh right, you can't possibly do that because it is impossible to test for (for the time being... perhaps one day we'll have technology that makes it possible to decipher information in our brains). So if you want to start presenting arguments around impossibilities, we might as well talk about invisible dragons.

And scientists DO NOT claim 100% truth. Just like Richard Dawkins doesn't claim that he is 100% sure that god doesn't exist.

Look, we have brains that enable us to interpret the world around us. The world isn't in our head to begin with. And until you can provide evidence to the contrary, that is a stance I will hold.

By the way, when our brains learn, they grow. This can be visualized with technology. Synapses fire and get fortified when new information is acquired. Your brain wires itself a certain way as you learn. This is all proven science with a ton of research and evidence to back it up. If what you suggest is true, none of this should be happening because none of the information you take in would be new.

The ball is now in your court buddy.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: False Dichotomy Fallacy
(16-07-2013 08:57 AM)Skulb Wrote:  100% scientific truth does not exist as a result of these problems, yet if you talk to a materialist they sound like it not only exists but that it exists all over the place. This is a discredited strain of science and you should read Popper if you want to find out why in more detail.

Were you and I and I in the same Epistemology 101 class recently?

That 'revelation' is as earth-shaking as a gnat's fart.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2013, 09:37 AM
RE: False Dichotomy Fallacy
(16-07-2013 09:24 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-07-2013 08:57 AM)Skulb Wrote:  100% scientific truth does not exist as a result of these problems, yet if you talk to a materialist they sound like it not only exists but that it exists all over the place. This is a discredited strain of science and you should read Popper if you want to find out why in more detail.

Were you and I and I in the same Epistemology 101 class recently?

That 'revelation' is as earth-shaking as a gnat's fart.

No such thing as revelation according to Skulb. That gnat's fart was already in your brain. You are just pulling that knowledge out of the deep recesses of your neurons.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: False Dichotomy Fallacy
(16-07-2013 08:57 AM)Skulb Wrote:  That refried Platonism is the western philosophical tradition. What you are missing is that the world manifests in the human consciousness and that it is therefore metaphysical from the getgo.

No, it is pure Platonism and it is one tiny, largely discredited, thread in Western philosophical thought.

Quote:For most people who never question the constancy of the intersubjective, such as modern scientists, the problem doesn`t seem to occur to them. The idea of a whale resides within the human intellect until it is realized through the knowledge of whale, from which point it constitutes our sensory interpretation of a whale cognitively and intellectually.

The idea of a whale only exists in a mind after it has been learned. The whale meme does not spring forth de novo in a mind.

Quote:Therefore the conflict is between the general and the particular, the abstraction and the concrete. Religion can be in the debate but certainly not the mystics who are engaging in it now. What bugs me is that both sides are missing the real problem that this debate has brought to light again. I have no problem understanding that mystics who believe God writes books are difficult to engage in debate, but why there seems to be an equation between science and materialism these days I really dislike. The world is not readily available for analysis but depending on systems of interpretation like language, logic and science to make sure we`re all talking about the same thing. But this doesn`t mean that we understand anything, which is the error of many materialists, precisely because we construct reality in our meeting with it.
100% scientific truth does not exist as a result of these problems, yet if you talk to a materialist they sound like it not only exists but that it exists all over the place. This is a discredited strain of science and you should read Popper if you want to find out why in more detail.

You can dislike science all you want - but it works whether you like it or not.

The world is available for analysis and is being analysed.
You haven't provided any evidence as to what the error of materialists is.

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
20-07-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: False Dichotomy Fallacy
(08-07-2013 09:07 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Yeah for that matter what constitutes as species? ...

I believe that the standard definition for "species" is something on the order of

"A set of organisms capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring"

This definition becomes a bit problematic when considering organisms that reproduce exclusively asexually, and in cases like the horse and the ass. A mule is the product of a mare and a jackass. Mules are usually sterile, but rare instances of fertile mules have been reported.

This little problem in the definition may exist, but nothing in science is perfect, unlike the alleged perfection of religious dogma (like the Catholic Limbo).

"I like theories you can test."
-- Sheldon Glashow

When in doubt, eat chocolate.
If doubt persists, have a hot fudge sundae.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: False Dichotomy Fallacy
(20-07-2013 10:35 AM)dclarion Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 09:07 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Yeah for that matter what constitutes as species? ...

I believe that the standard definition for "species" is something on the order of

"A set of organisms capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring"

This definition becomes a bit problematic when considering organisms that reproduce exclusively asexually, and in cases like the horse and the ass. A mule is the product of a mare and a jackass. Mules are usually sterile, but rare instances of fertile mules have been reported.

This little problem in the definition may exist, but nothing in science is perfect, unlike the alleged perfection of religious dogma (like the Catholic Limbo).

You would be correct.

I was just trying to back Senca's point on the line between life and non-life actually being quite gray by stating that all individual organisms are unique. My wording was a bit off.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: False Dichotomy Fallacy
(08-07-2013 08:36 PM)sencha Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 08:21 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  I like the way you explained that--easy to understand-- made sense to me.

But I have a question that I'm hoping you can explain further.



could you explain more abiogenesis? I come across many people that try the comparison made above to promote creationism.

thanks.

Abiogenesis literally means 'life from lifelessness.' Evolution is a theory about how life changes over time. It is not a theory about where life came from in the first place. Creationism is a theory about where life came from in the first place. Therefore creationism and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

to the scientist how life came into existence and how humans came into existence are two separate questions...the former is still awaiting a theory with supporting evidence (there are lots of hypotheses centered around abiogenesis that are undergoing testing), while the latter has a strong theory (evolution) with lots of supporting evidence...for the creationists, these two questions are combined into a single supposition - god created everything in its current form...this is why creationists are fighting tooth and nail to get evolution out of the science curriculum...

Born into and died in a Catholic family. Resurrected an atheist at the age of 7. My Blog; My Email
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 03:22 PM
RE: False Dichotomy Fallacy
(14-08-2013 02:40 PM)foxholeatheist Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 08:36 PM)sencha Wrote:  Abiogenesis literally means 'life from lifelessness.' Evolution is a theory about how life changes over time. It is not a theory about where life came from in the first place. Creationism is a theory about where life came from in the first place. Therefore creationism and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

to the scientist how life came into existence and how humans came into existence are two separate questions...the former is still awaiting a theory with supporting evidence (there are lots of hypotheses centered around abiogenesis that are undergoing testing), while the latter has a strong theory (evolution) with lots of supporting evidence...for the creationists, these two questions are combined into a single supposition - god created everything in its current form...this is why creationists are fighting tooth and nail to get evolution out of the science curriculum...

A lot of work in abiogenesis involves self-organizing systems. These are systems whose elements, while unordered in themselves, can combine to spontaneously produce order. A classic example is the cell membrane. The cell membrane is a lipid bilayer, two sheets of fat molecules whose hydrophobic faces are in contact with each other, leaving their hydrophillic faces exposed. It has been shown that lipids dispersed in water can spontaneously assume this configuration. If, during its formation, such a bilayer encloses a bit of water with organic molecules in it, you have the rudiments of a cell. Depending upon the organic molecules so enclosed and the ambient conditions, such a rudiment might become a functioning cell.

"I like theories you can test."
-- Sheldon Glashow

When in doubt, eat chocolate.
If doubt persists, have a hot fudge sundae.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on. Metazoa Zeke 7 306 06-03-2014 11:23 AM
Last Post: WillHopp
Forum Jump: