Fuck you, Science!

[birdman]

I agree that identifying and understanding the presuppositions of one's views aren't really important if you are doing science. Science is a useful way of understanding the material world, and the presuppositions don't really matter to the result of a science experiment, for example. The problem I see, however, is when those presuppositions bleed over outside of their proper sphere (i.e., doing science) and into realms they aren't suited for, like answering philosophical questions like "is there a god?" or " how should I live my life?" In that situation, the unexamined presuppositions predetermine the answer. For someone who wants to be intellectually rigorous, I would think this is a major problem.

The underlying issue here is that you and many others believe that there is stuff beyond the material world that we exist in. That is a presupposition too. It is unchallengeable because there is no way to prove it. That is, in my opinion, not really worth arguing about because there is no end to that argument.

Most scientist, even the Atheist ones, don't care about religion until the religion interferes with the progress of science and the accumulation of knowledge about the material world. Once your religion starts telling me that Global Warming doesn't matter because God has a plan, then I need to see some proof.

 

[RJKarl]

Sure, but if you examine enough evidence or try to empirically study an measure something and fail enough times, it is pretty reasonable to conclude the thing doesn't exist.

How many efforts have been made to cure a disease before it was found? Should they have concluded it doesn't exist?

DaVinci theorized about flight in the 1400s, but it wasn't proven until the 1900s. During those 400 years of trying to create flight and failing, wouldn't it have been "reasonable" to conclude it wasn't possible?

Before the 1940s, it was impossible to accurately date ancient articles. Should it have been concluded that this was impossible?

 

[birdman]

How many efforts have been made to cure a disease before it was found? Should they have concluded it doesn't exist?

DaVinci theorized about flight in the 1400s, but it wasn't proven until the 1900s. During those 400 years of trying to create flight and failing, wouldn't it have been "reasonable" to conclude it wasn't possible?

Before the 1940s, it was impossible to accurately date ancient articles. Should it have been concluded that this was impossible?

This is a curious line of straw dogs.

The existence of the disease is/was provable prior to the discovery of the cure.

Other things fly (like birds!) which is proveable so it would not be irrational to believe flight is possible.

Prior to 1940 it would have been pretty crazy to believe in carbon dating.

 

[RJKarl]

This is a curious line of straw dogs.

The existence of the disease is/was provable prior to the discovery of the cure.

Other things fly (like birds!) which is proveable so it would not be irrational to believe flight is possible.

Prior to 1940 it would have been pretty crazy to believe in carbon dating.

Just because there is a disease, doesn't mean it's curable. Using your premise, after X number of failed tries, it would be "reasonable to conclude" that a cure isn't possible and therefore doesn't exist when it may.

AH, the last one is the best. Why can't the theory of faith be the same thing as carbon dating? You said it was crazy to believe in carbon dating, but it was there all the time. Maybe the same is true about faith and no one has figured out the correct test.

You can't have it be true about carbon dating and say the same thing can't exist about faith.

 

[birdman]

People didn't and should not have believed in carbon dating prior to the discovery of carbon dating. There was no proof prior to that and it would have been a bit crazy to believe it in.

 

[ConnorEl]

Both things are true. It's silly to imagine or claim today that we understand the limits of what we might eventually be able to study or understand. And silly to make important decisions based on things impossible to verify or with no basis in observable or understandable reality (as we can appreciate it).


Caveat: it's also true we will always have to make important decisions in the absence of certainty wrt reality.

 

[RJKarl]

People didn't and should not have believed in carbon dating prior to the discovery of carbon dating. There was no proof prior to that and it would have been a bit crazy to believe it in.

Why is it crazy to believe in something that has yet to be proven or disproved?

Isn't that how discoveries are most often made?

 

[birdman]

Why is it crazy to believe in something that has yet to be proven or disproved?

Isn't that how discoveries are most often made?

Discoveries are made through hypothesizing or theorizing something then studying it. The hypotheses are rooted in existing science and data. Carbon dating was discovered because someone before that discovered isotopes and then some realized that the isotopes are unstable and decay over time and then some realized that it was a steady decay rate, etc, etc.prior to the discovery ofnisotopes not a single person believed in carbon dating. Not one.

 

[RJKarl]

Maybe we haven't figured out how to test for issues in faith. Maybe we haven't figured out that some isotopes to test.

I bet there have been some theories that took centuries to prove.

I don't think you can say definitively that faith is "crazy" or wrong. Semi-successful scientists from Galileo to Bacon to Einstein to Sagan and others believed in some sort of faith.

 

[birdman]

Maybe we haven't figured out how to test for issues in faith. Maybe we haven't figured out that some isotopes to test.

I bet there have been some theories that took centuries to prove.

I don't think you can say definitively that faith is "crazy" or wrong. Semi-successful scientists from Galileo to Bacon to Einstein to Sagan and others believed in some sort of faith.

Please show me where I said faith was crazy. I've said it is not unreasonable to conclude that there is no god based on application of the scientific method and reasonable inference.

 

[RJKarl]

I have to admit one of my favorite discussions with fundamentalists and other strong Christian believers is that they have an alliance with Buddhists. They get confused when I say each believes in reincarnation. The true believers say I'm crazy. Then, they become frustrated when I ask the difference between going from human to spirit versus from human to another being.

 

[RJKarl]

Please show me where I said faith was crazy. I've said it is not unreasonable to conclude that there is no god based on application of the scientific method and reasonable inference.

My mistake for using the word "crazy".

 

[dartsndeacs]

Spent the last 20 years of my life being an atheist. Video game theory sold me. Or just an experiment with someone putting a buncha atoms together to see what happens. An experiment.

Absolutely has to be a creator out there, there's just likely zero reason he cares if I worship him.

Then again last night was the first time I acknowledged him or her, I rarely ever dream except for last night where I had a very vivid sexual encounter with the Mother of Dragons, first of her name.

 

[wakephan09]

I have to admit one of my favorite discussions with fundamentalists and other strong Christian believers is that they have an alliance with Buddhists. They get confused when I say each believes in reincarnation. The true believers say I'm crazy. Then, they become frustrated when I ask the difference between going from human to spirit versus from human to another being.

carnis, RJ, carnis! Flesh! Human to spirit is not reincarnation!

 

[Strickland33]

Discoveries are made through hypothesizing or theorizing something then studying it. The hypotheses are rooted in existing science and data. Carbon dating was discovered because someone before that discovered isotopes and then some realized that the isotopes are unstable and decay over time and then some realized that it was a steady decay rate, etc, etc.prior to the discovery ofnisotopes not a single person believed in carbon dating. Not one.

titcr

RJ , you should check out Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

I don't "presuppose" that there is non-material existence. I have, through rational thought, concluded that there is. I recognize that, as a good scientist, you reject rationalism in favor of empiricism, but that doesn't turn the propositions of rationalism into presuppositions.

What do you mean by rationalism?

 

[birdman]

I don't "presuppose" that there is non-material existence. I have, through rational thought, concluded that there is. I recognize that, as a good scientist, you reject rationalism in favor of empiricism, but that doesn't turn the propositions of rationalism into presuppositions.

What rational thought led you to conclude that there are things in the universe that are out side the physical, observable state? To me if it can't be proven via observation or measurement, i.e. it can't be independently verified, it's a presupposition.

 

[Strickland33]

I mean the classic definition of rationalism -- truth is acquired primarily from reason, not the senses.

Can there ever be pure reason?

 

[RJKarl]

What rational thought led you to conclude that there are things in the universe that are out side the physical, observable state? To me if it can't be proven via observation or measurement, i.e. it can't be independently verified, it's a presupposition.

Until just recently there were plenty of things that science hadn't figured out how to observe. It's far more reasonable to believe there are almost a limitless amount of things we haven't yet or haven't figured out to observe than that things we haven't don't exist.

Do you believe there is any form of life on even a single planet in any of the millions of universes that exist?

 

[RJKarl]

Can there ever be pure reason?

Other than by me?

 

[Strickland33]

Other than by me?

Kant stop, won't stop