I'm so bad at this...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: I'm so bad at this...
(29-09-2014 12:17 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Short answer tell him/her to shoo fly. Big Grin

The longer answer would be that science isn't a belief. As the science improves we can and should modify our conclusions, but the conclusions are based on the evidence gathered, which is tested repeatedly and never just on a vague hunch.

Exactly. Science is a method. A clearly defined and self-correcting methodology. Religions already have all they need to know. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
29-09-2014, 12:43 PM
RE: I'm so bad at this...
(29-09-2014 12:25 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Both of the believers in the discussion are "spiritual", meaning they just make it up as they go. I've already blown them both off.

I think what pisses me off the most is the smugness. Fuck I hate smug.

Thanks for the help guys. If someone has a square tuit I'll post the whole convo. That is if I figure out how to blackout the names.

I've got a friend like that. She took a semester of college biology and knows all about evolution.

She's one of those types who sees the "face of god" in a baby's smile.

The smugness bugs me to no end.

Good to see ya around. Smile


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2014, 12:47 PM
RE: I'm so bad at this...
(29-09-2014 11:16 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  .....which logical fallacy is this? (Actually I think he's jammed in a few)

Quote:Hey Bud, the evidence may not change but our interpretation of the evidence does change. And that interpretation is all based on human perception, fallible and faulty. Being based on human perception it is therefore not proof of anything. Belief in science is as much a faith as belief in God. Wink

Obviously it's a non sequitur, but there's just so much wrong in this paragraph I can't begin to refute it.

He's offering you a package deal. He's equating the subjective belief of faith with the objective method of science. The two are diametrically dis-analogous. Also interpretations can be wrong. If two people interpret the same evidence in contradictory ways, one of them is right and one is wrong.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
29-09-2014, 12:53 PM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2014 12:58 PM by Dark Phoenix.)
RE: I'm so bad at this...
(29-09-2014 11:16 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  .....which logical fallacy is this? (Actually I think he's jammed in a few)

Quote:Hey Bud, the evidence may not change but our interpretation of the evidence does change. And that interpretation is all based on human perception, fallible and faulty. Being based on human perception it is therefore not proof of anything. Belief in science is as much a faith as belief in God. Wink

Obviously it's a non sequitur, but there's just so much wrong in this paragraph I can't begin to refute it.

This is why Aron Ra is always saying "Religion reverses everything".

The main difference between an understanding of the scientific method, and a professed faith in supposed revelations from deities, is that scientists are required to present physical evidence and logical justifications for their assertions. Scientific theories are evolved to fit the known facts, and are successful theories when they can survive the introduction of hitherto unknown facts. They become accepted theories when they make accurate predictions about the nature of things or events which have not yet been discovered or have not yet taken place.

The author of this statement makes a considerable admission about religion when he points out how it is based on human perception which is
"fallible and faulty". Presumably this is the very same perception with which he or she experiences the texts and spiritual experiences of religion, and the same with which the authors of those ancient texts and others claimed to witness miracles, gods, and angels. This author may as well say "we will never understand anything, so who cares if we make it up and believe what we want?". He or she obviously believes that errors of perception make knowledge of objective truth impossible.

Science does not rely on belief or faith. It encourages criticism as an essential tool in weeding out theories which do not fit the known facts. The last thing a scientist wants is for you to believe what they say on faith. They don't need you to, since they can provide reasons and evidence that prove their assertions independent from your private wishes. To be proved wrong in science by evidence is a good thing since we have learned something new about the universe which we didn't understand before!

For the sake of summary, here are the main issues with the quote.

1. The author is ignorant of science
2. The author isn't trying to declare the truth of religion, only that he believes science to be no better. In the process he admits that religion is not objectively true, it is just his personal preference.
3. The author is attempting to discredit science by describing it in terms that are true when describing his religion. He is attempting to poorly transfer the weaknesses of his own position on to that of his opponent.




Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
29-09-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: I'm so bad at this...
It's false equivocation; he's equating science to be just as much grounded in "faith" as faith is. For starters, it shows a lack of understanding about what "faith" means and how it compares to evidence based argumentation. Secondly, it highlights an ignorance on epistemology. Humans are fallible and therefore incapable of absolute knowledge, but this does not equalize all methodologies onto the same playing field. A consistent, reliable methodology is going to consistently and reliably lead to better results than an inconsistent and unreliable one, fallibility be damned.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
29-09-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: I'm so bad at this...
(29-09-2014 11:16 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  .....which logical fallacy is this? (Actually I think he's jammed in a few)

Quote:Hey Bud, the evidence may not change but our interpretation of the evidence does change. And that interpretation is all based on human perception, fallible and faulty. Being based on human perception it is therefore not proof of anything. Belief in science is as much a faith as belief in God. Wink

Obviously it's a non sequitur, but there's just so much wrong in this paragraph I can't begin to refute it.

It is a non sequitur.
Science and faith are entirely different things. To try to conflate them is flimsy and insulting.
Consider
Maybe his mind is confusing faith and lack of faith; maybe he doesn't understand absence of faith.
Maybe he is unable to establish exactly what lack of faith is, while still trying to conflate it with what he also views to be firmly established and reasonable - science.
This is where his cognitive dissonance may be biting him in the ass. Deep down, his mind tells him lack of faith is actually reasonable where science is concerned ... which may cause him to feel a personal affront.
---
Science always tests and by it's very definition requires proof.
Faith never tests and by it's very definition, does not need or require proof.
---
One must always test science.
If one feels a need to test faith, then one has no faith.
---
Maybe your friend is just trying to make you feel as butt hurt as he feels at having bought into something he knows deep down might actually be poop.

Science and faith are irrelevant to each other. Drinking Beverage
_--_

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
29-09-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: I'm so bad at this...
(29-09-2014 11:16 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  .....which logical fallacy is this? (Actually I think he's jammed in a few)

Quote:Hey Bud, the evidence may not change but our interpretation of the evidence does change. And that interpretation is all based on human perception, fallible and faulty. Being based on human perception it is therefore not proof of anything. Belief in science is as much a faith as belief in God. Wink

Obviously it's a non sequitur, but there's just so much wrong in this paragraph I can't begin to refute it.

Even his own bible tells him that faith deals with things that are unseen. Science does rely on unseen things, but specifically on observation. The two seem to be quite the opposite when you look at it that way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: I'm so bad at this...
(29-09-2014 11:16 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  .....which logical fallacy is this? (Actually I think he's jammed in a few)

Quote:Hey Bud, the evidence may not change but our interpretation of the evidence does change. And that interpretation is all based on human perception, fallible and faulty. Being based on human perception it is therefore not proof of anything. Belief in science is as much a faith as belief in God. Wink

Obviously it's a non sequitur, but there's just so much wrong in this paragraph I can't begin to refute it.


Then the Germ Theory is just a human "interpretation of the evidence" too. Next time he comes down with a bacterial infection he can interpret this theory as being a "fallible and faulty" perception, forego antibiotic treatment and die.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: I'm so bad at this...
(29-09-2014 11:16 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  .....which logical fallacy is this? (Actually I think he's jammed in a few)

Quote:Hey Bud, the evidence may not change but our interpretation of the evidence does change. And that interpretation is all based on human perception, fallible and faulty. Being based on human perception it is therefore not proof of anything. Belief in science is as much a faith as belief in God. Wink

Obviously it's a non sequitur, but there's just so much wrong in this paragraph I can't begin to refute it.

He is saying humans cannot be sure of anything....which is true...you could be a brain in vat and reality can actually be quite different then what you believe it to be.

Agree with him and then point out that the same is true for God. If God is all powerful then it should be within God's power to create a lessor being which thinks it is God. Ask your friend how is it that his God knows it is the real God and not some lessor being covertly tricked into believing it is God? God cannot believe Himself to be God without depending on faith.

The real question is what is the compelling reason for you to abandon your faith in science and embrace the faith of religion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heywood Jahblome's post
29-09-2014, 06:23 PM
RE: I'm so bad at this...
At it's highest level it is a non-sequitur. Drilling down it also appears that he has mounted his goal posts on motorized segways. By stating that human interpretation and perception is fallible and faulty he set it up such that he can question whatever logical tools you present to him. Lastly, he is apparently ignorant of the scientific method which effectively renders his point moot so it is also an argument from ignorance.


If you don't want a sarcastic answer, don't ask stupid questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ivaneus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: