• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Fuck you, Science!

Junebug said:
Your usage of the word "presupposition" is incorrect here. A presupposition is a logical proposition for which there is no proof of any kind. Rationalist thought can provide sufficient proof to turn a presupposition into a proposition, even if you personally don't accept that method of proof because it isn't empirical.

To answer your question, I have, through reason and contemplation, arrived at the conclusion that the material world is not all that is on a number of fronts. For example, I have, through reason and contemplation, concluded that it is more likely than not that the material universe was created by an external force. In my humble estimation, believing either that the universe is eternal or that the universe just popped into existence without an external force does not accord with what we know about science. I can't detect the force that created the universe with my senses, so I conclude that either we just haven't found the force or, more likely, that the force is not a material thing.

As another example, I have, through reason and contemplation, come to the view that there are certain ethical principles that are uniformly true. There is, in my view, simply too much homogeneity between cultural mores for there to not be an absolute right and wrong undergirding those mores. I think this ethical truth is no less "real" than things despite the fact it cannot be detected with my senses. Further, I think that the very concept of ethical rules implies the existence of an ethical rule giver. Again, I cannot detect this rule giver with my senses, so I conclude that it is most likely that the rule giver is not a material thing.

There are many other examples, but those are the first two that come to mind.
Click to expand...

Why is it more likely that the force is a material thing? Given the size and scale of the universe (and our current technological capacity), I don't see how rationalist thought as you have described it leads to the conclusion that you have made.
 
Junebug said:
Your usage of the word "presupposition" is incorrect here. A presupposition is a logical proposition for which there is no proof of any kind. Rationalist thought can provide sufficient proof to turn a presupposition into a proposition, even if you personally don't accept that method of proof because it isn't empirical.

To answer your question, I have, through reason and contemplation, arrived at the conclusion that the material world is not all that is on a number of fronts. For example, I have, through reason and contemplation, concluded that it is more likely than not that the material universe was created by an external force. In my humble estimation, believing either that the universe is eternal or that the universe just popped into existence without an external force does not accord with what we know about science. I can't detect the force that created the universe with my senses, so I conclude that either we just haven't found the force or, more likely, that the force is not a material thing.

As another example, I have, through reason and contemplation, come to the view that there are certain ethical principles that are uniformly true. There is, in my view, simply too much homogeneity between cultural mores for there to not be an absolute right and wrong undergirding those mores. I think this ethical truth is no less "real" than things despite the fact it cannot be detected with my senses. Further, I think that the very concept of ethical rules implies the existence of an ethical rule giver. Again, I cannot detect this rule giver with my senses, so I conclude that it is most likely that the rule giver is not a material thing.

There are many other examples, but those are the first two that come to mind.
Click to expand...

You are a fascinating person.

What if I used rational thought to conclude that it isn't possible to know things just by thinking about them? Then my opinion has that empiricism is the only way to know things is not a presupposition, right? Fwiw, I was a very religious person until my early 20's and it was a a very difficult thought and decision process to come to my current world view.
 
RJKarl said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the purpose of your first paragraph is. Just because there are phenomena in the universe that we haven't measured or figured out how to observe yet doesn't mean those thing are magical and supernatural.

I think it is highly probable that life exists on other planets.
 
RE: first paragraph- who knows what whether the basis of faith will be "magical or supernatural"? Remember the first two monotheistic faiths (Judaism and Roman Catholicism) believe their Bibles to be mostly allegoric not entirely historical documents. Whereas David and Solomon others were real people things like the Garden of Eden and turning people into pillars of salt are allegorical. The phenomenon of taking the Bible literally is basically done by offshoot sects.

The fact you think it's "highly probable" that the is life on other planets has not been tested or empirically proven. Thus, you take that on faith. Why shouldn't some take religion on faith if you can pick and choose what you take on faith?
 
RJKarl said:
RE: first paragraph- who knows what whether the basis of faith will be "magical or supernatural"? Remember the first two monotheistic faiths (Judaism and Roman Catholicism) believe their Bibles to be mostly allegoric not entirely historical documents. Whereas David and Solomon others were real people things like the Garden of Eden and turning people into pillars of salt are allegorical. The phenomenon of taking the Bible literally is basically done by offshoot sects.

The fact you think it's "highly probable" that the is life on other planets has not been tested or empirically proven. Thus, you take that on faith. Why shouldn't some take religion on faith if you can pick and choose what you take on faith?
Click to expand...

RJ, I believe it because I've seen the math not because I watched ET and took it too seriously. Number of stars in the universe x proportion of stars with planets = a mother fucking shit ton of planets = a mother fucking shit ton of opportunities for life to arise. Even if life arising is a 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance, it is probably out there in several places. Besides, my position is not even a belief, it is a probabilistic statement. Science builds on it self, it doesn't just invent things out of nowhere and then believe them without evidence until it's proven true.
 
I agree with you that life is inevitable, but there is absolutely no proof. It's all a belief and a desire to project numbers that have only a basis in faith.

The Hindu history talks about the "gods" coming from the sky. Other mythologies talk about beings coming from the skies. Could that be evidence?
 
RJKarl said:
I agree with you that life is inevitable, but there is absolutely no proof. It's all a belief and a desire to project numbers that have only a basis in faith.

The Hindu history talks about the "gods" coming from the sky. Other mythologies talk about beings coming from the skies. Could that be evidence?
Click to expand...

The phrase "highly probable" does not mean inevitable.

Yep, the Hindu story proves god. My bad, I didn't know about the Hindus.
 
There you go. No need to be snide. I never said the Hindu proved anything. I simply discussed what they think.

No need to descend like others do.
 
RJKarl said:
There you go. No need to be snide. I never said the Hindu proved anything. I simply discussed what they think.

No need to descend like others do.
Click to expand...

I grow weary of this line of questioning. I take probabilistic view of these things, this is derived from my experience and training as a statistical ecologist. In my view there is a much higher probability that ancient cultures independently invented stories that powerful things come from some unknown place in the sky than powerful things actually come from some unknown place in the sky. To be honest with you, statisticians typically (especially those of the Bayesian persuasion) don't think anything is really provable or disprovable we just think about degrees of probability. I'm really an agnostic about everything, but there are somethings where the probability distribution is so skewed in favor of one outcome that it is sufficient to say it is proven. So I say I'm an atheist, because I am 99% certain that everything I've ever been told about human concepts of god are not true. If you read Dawkins' God Delusion, even he hedges and says that on a 7 point contrived ordinal scale, with one being a biblical literalist and 7 being a complete without any doubt Atheist, he himself is a 6. You are right it is not possible to prove there is not god but it is not possible to prove a negative in almost any case. Tea pots floating in space yadda yadda. However, seems to that if religious belief is going to intervene in public policy in opposition to scientific data, the burden of proof should probably be on the religion to offer some proof beyond 'well, I thought about it and concluded it's true...'
 
Last edited:
Not to be condescending but there's one person who doesn't know what a confidence interval, p value, or r value are and he's the one talking about faith

Don't think this is particularly fruitful

I was mildly interested in Junebug's epistemological concepts but he and rj are basically saying the same (logically problematic) thing
 
birdman said:
I grow weary of this line of questioning. I take probabilistic view of these things, this is derived from my experience and training as a statistical ecologist. In my view there is a much higher probability that ancient cultures independently invented stories that powerful things come from some unknown place in the sky than powerful things actually come from some unknown place in the sky. To be honest with you, statisticians typically (especially those of the Bayesian persuasion) don't think anything is really provable or disprovable we just think about degrees of probability. I'm really an agnostic about everything, but there are somethings where the probability distribution is so skewed in favor of one outcome that it is sufficient to say it is proven. So I say I'm an atheist, because I am 99% certain that everything I've ever been told about human concepts of god are not true. If you read Dawkins' God Delusion, even he hedges and says that on a 7 point contrived ordinal scale, with one being a biblical literalist and 7 being a complete without any doubt Atheist, he himself is a 6. You are right it is not possible to prove there is not god but it is not possible to prove a negative in almost any case. Tea pots floating in space yadda yadda. However, seems to that if religious belief is going to intervene in public policy in opposition to scientific data, the burden of proof should probably be on the religion to offer some proof beyond 'well, I though about it and concluded it's true...'
Click to expand...

I completely oppose religion having anything to do with public policy and do believe in science as has been evident for over a quarter-of-a-century of my posts on Wake boards.

Currently, it's not possible to prove some religious tenets. But in the 1600s, even the greatest scientists didn't know how to do cell phones. In the 1700s, the greatest scientists couldn't prove the concept of sending a human to the moon and returning that person home safely. In the 1800s, scientists hadn't figured out how to test for carbon dating. There are thousands of other such situations. We've learned more about science and the world in the past hundred years than in the past millions of years of human existence. Maybe in 300 or 500 years, scientists or others will be able to explain the existence of other powers or beings. We simply don't know.

When the Old Testament was written, the laws of kosher were set up because some wise people (precursors to scientists) understood that certain foods could kill you if not properly consumed. So, they blamed it on God. Just like food science has evolved maybe the concept of another power may also evolve.
 
TownieDeac said:
Not to be condescending but there's one person who doesn't know what a confidence interval, p value, or r value are and he's the one talking about faith

Don't think this is particularly fruitful

I was mildly interested in Junebug's epistemological concepts but he and rj are basically saying the same (logically problematic) thing
Click to expand...

Not to be condescending but we have a person who is too weak to admit that he supports certain lifestyles and ideals and he projects his own personal weakness onto others regularly.
 
RJKarl said:
I agree with you that life is inevitable, but there is absolutely no proof. It's all a belief and a desire to project numbers that have only a basis in faith.

The Hindu history talks about the "gods" coming from the sky. Other mythologies talk about beings coming from the skies. Could that be evidence?
Click to expand...

5d542fcd3e40cde461ec50c8c296b9abb8cfd28e1106634a9a8b331909b33b4f.jpg
 
birdman said:
What if I used rational thought to conclude that it isn't possible to know things just by thinking about them? Then my opinion has that empiricism is the only way to know things is not a presupposition, right? Fwiw, I was a very religious person until my early 20's and it was a a very difficult thought and decision process to come to my current world view.
Click to expand...

birdman said:
RJ, I believe it because I've seen the math
Click to expand...

I'm no philosopher, but haven't we arrived at a large portion of our knowledge about math just by thinking about it?
 
OldGoldBeard said:
I'm no philosopher, but haven't we arrived at a large portion of our knowledge about math just by thinking about it?
Click to expand...

That is an interesting thought, but the core of mathematical knowledge is the "Proof".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top