Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-12-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(29-12-2013 06:03 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm kinda into velvet right now?

Is that strange?

Nothing against cotton or wool or anything but velvet has a certain velvetiness to it.

Dodgy

I hear you man,velvet is great. Still, there's something about that wool...

[Image: nf1m5j.jpg]

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Slowminded's post
29-12-2013, 07:27 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(27-12-2013 08:47 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So, a few weeks, back in the Census of Quirinius thread, Alpha Male said the following in response to me:

(17-12-2013 02:36 PM)alpha male Wrote:  And this is the real reason: a priori materialist bias.

I pressed him a bit to discuss this, and more than once, he said it was a red herring and that I should start another thread, so I'm doing just that.



So, what is "Materialist bias"?
Materialist bias in context of that thread is simply assuming that accounts of the supernatural are mythology rather than history.
Quote:From the context, it looks like if we are assuming that things that we can observe have precedence over things that we cannot or have not yet, it is somehow biased. I suppose this is true in the strictest sense of the word, but to give that any weight seems like it make it impossible to function in the real world.
Huh? That doesn't come from the context at all. The context was Josephus v. Luke. It had nothing to do with things we can observe. The discussion involved mundane history. You engaged in poisoning the well and materialist bias by saying that Luke is less trustworthy because he also speaks of supernatural events. I then showed that Josephus also recorded supernatural events, making the issue irrelevant for that thread.
Quote:So far as I can tell, if I'm looking for cars before I cross the road, I see a car, and wait for it to pass, I'm being biased, or something.
A more accurate analogy would be if you were about to step into the road without looking, I said "Wait, a car's coming," and you ignored me because I accept some supernatural claims. You know that you don't reject mundane claims from people because they're religious, yet that's what you attempted to do with Luke.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 08:21 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(29-12-2013 07:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(27-12-2013 08:47 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So, a few weeks, back in the Census of Quirinius thread, Alpha Male said the following in response to me:


I pressed him a bit to discuss this, and more than once, he said it was a red herring and that I should start another thread, so I'm doing just that.



So, what is "Materialist bias"?
Materialist bias in context of that thread is simply assuming that accounts of the supernatural are mythology rather than history.
Quote:From the context, it looks like if we are assuming that things that we can observe have precedence over things that we cannot or have not yet, it is somehow biased. I suppose this is true in the strictest sense of the word, but to give that any weight seems like it make it impossible to function in the real world.
Huh? That doesn't come from the context at all. The context was Josephus v. Luke. It had nothing to do with things we can observe. The discussion involved mundane history. You engaged in poisoning the well and materialist bias by saying that Luke is less trustworthy because he also speaks of supernatural events. I then showed that Josephus also recorded supernatural events, making the issue irrelevant for that thread.
Quote:So far as I can tell, if I'm looking for cars before I cross the road, I see a car, and wait for it to pass, I'm being biased, or something.
A more accurate analogy would be if you were about to step into the road without looking, I said "Wait, a car's coming," and you ignored me because I accept some supernatural claims. You know that you don't reject mundane claims from people because they're religious, yet that's what you attempted to do with Luke.
Why should anyone accept supernatural claims? Especially when those claims were made thousands of years ago. Were they supernatural to begin with or was it relating to something else entirely, something that they could not yet explain. Is supernatural just a placeholder for something we don't fully understand?

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes grizzlysnake's post
29-12-2013, 08:57 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
G.K Chesterton touched on this subject in a slightly more eloquent way in his book Orthodoxy in the chapter "authority and the Adventurer". Here is the excerpt.
Quote:Any one who likes, therefore, may call my belief in God merely mystical; the phrase is not worth fighting about. But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant’s word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant’s word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism—the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you
are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence—it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not con- strained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say “a peasant saw a ghost,” I am told, “But peasants are so credulous.” If I ask, “Why credulous?” the only answer is—that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland.

Its interesting. I was planing on starting a thread about your guys thoughts on this passage. And conveniently a thread was already waiting for me.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 08:59 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(29-12-2013 06:17 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(29-12-2013 06:03 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm kinda into velvet right now?

Is that strange?

Nothing against cotton or wool or anything but velvet has a certain velvetiness to it.

Dodgy

I hear you man,velvet is great. Still, there's something about that wool...

[Image: nf1m5j.jpg]

Dammit, don't make me break out the NOFX "Petting Zoo" album cover....

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 09:02 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(29-12-2013 07:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Materialist bias in context of that thread is simply assuming that superstitious WOO is mythology rather than history.
[Image: fixed.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 09:05 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(29-12-2013 08:57 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  G.K Chesterton touched on this subject in a slightly more eloquent way in his book Orthodoxy in the chapter "authority and the Adventurer". Here is the excerpt.
Quote:Any one who likes, therefore, may call my belief in God merely mystical; the phrase is not worth fighting about. But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant’s word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant’s word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism—the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you
are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence—it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not con- strained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say “a peasant saw a ghost,” I am told, “But peasants are so credulous.” If I ask, “Why credulous?” the only answer is—that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland.

Its interesting. I was planing on starting a thread about your guys thoughts on this passage. And conveniently a thread was already waiting for me.

And you find that sort of disingenuous semantic prestidigitation convincing? Rolleyes

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 09:07 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(29-12-2013 09:05 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(29-12-2013 08:57 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  G.K Chesterton touched on this subject in a slightly more eloquent way in his book Orthodoxy in the chapter "authority and the Adventurer". Here is the excerpt.

Its interesting. I was planing on starting a thread about your guys thoughts on this passage. And conveniently a thread was already waiting for me.

And you find that sort of disingenuous semantic prestidigitation convincing? Rolleyes

He is a Cat o lick and considering he thinks Thomas Aquinas is a great thinker and philosopher that is nowhere near as bad as some of the stuff he believes. But Tarzan is not a bad guy usually, just have to watch him.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2013, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 30-12-2013 04:27 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Materialist Bias?
(29-12-2013 08:57 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  G.K Chesterton ...

It's interesting. I was planning on starting a thread about your guy's thoughts on this passage. And conveniently, a thread was already waiting for me.

I'm sure you don't need us to pick that apart for you.

But it was quite enjoyable to play 'Find The Fallacy' (have we just invented a new forum game?).

Here's the main reason for the fail... he is treating 'testimony' as formal evidence...



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
30-12-2013, 12:11 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(30-12-2013 12:04 AM)DLJ Wrote:  'Find The Fallacy' (have we just invented a new forum game?).

[Image: Fuck_Yea.PNG?1318992465]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: