RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:07:44 PM)

quote:

I think you are confusing science with epistemology.


No, I'm not. I agree with the points in your post, but I'm pointing out that arguing from a science vs. religion perspective is arbitrary, a false dichotomy.

Much as I respect science, it's not the only way we reliably experience the world.




seekingOwnertoo -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:15:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

But I would also caution you about the video. On it, we saw at least two different events, at at least two different times, and only very short sections of those. It seems to me that the entire video was shaped and formed to fit an agenda: and not a religious friendly viewpoint.


This is good point .... it is possible .... I didn't sit and study it in detail ... because, it does not effect my life at all ...

But I certianly do not think ... that LA did the editing or the shaping ... nor do I suggest She is doing anything but what She said She was in the OP ... and that is ...

Creating a very rousing debate! ;-)










thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:21:05 PM)

quote:

We are, after all, only sinful humans


Do not seek to include me in your sinful admissions[8|]




Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:23:34 PM)

He was joking, and I trust you are too.

The point preceding it, though, was accurate--all of our perceptions are skewed by ego. To believe one is above that is foolish.

And egotistic! [:D]






thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:25:56 PM)

quote:

It appears, however, that you only want confirmation of your own beliefs.


And of course you do not.




pyroaquatic -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:31:59 PM)

quote:

MM, no need to resort to being condescending, which you tend to be with people when they don't agree with you.
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Firm, MM and yourself can keep projecting.


Keep playing this game. Eventually, you'll figure out it's not working.


Oh gosh MM, sometimes you are really too much ;-) I know it's really important for you to be right.

- LA



Back on Topic Political Sharks.

It is one thing to distract. It is another to shut up and learn from a great teacher.

You can say Bollocks and bellow accusations... this 'game'?

Ya huh, naw uh, YA, NO, YA, NO Pattern much?

Teacher, they should teach both in someplaces, no? Do they already?





thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:32:04 PM)

quote:

On rare occasions, I've even changed my mind.


Would you care to share?




thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:34:50 PM)

quote:

What you mean is ... you don't believe in God or religion, and if anyone wishes to convince you otherwise, they must accept all your preconditions and assumptions,

You mean like not using the bible as a source of fact?
and only then, based on your stacked deck,

You mean the stacked deck of logic?

will you even consider that they might have something worth believing in?
I have no problem with people believing in magic, santa clause.the easter bunny or the tooth fairy.




thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:45:09 PM)

quote:

Much as I respect science, it's not the only way we reliably experience the world.

What exactly are those other ways we might reliably experience the world?




brainiacsub -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:51:11 PM)

Tim and I both agree that experience and intuition are both ways in which we experience the world. I am not sure that we agree that these are "reliable" until they pass scientific muster.




thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:56:32 PM)

quote:

He was joking, and I trust you are too.

The point preceding it, though, was accurate--all of our perceptions are skewed by ego. To believe one is above that is foolish.

And egotistic!


Are you trying to say (with a straight face) that I have never been accusused of egotism on these boards/[8|][B]




thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 2:58:45 PM)

quote:

Tim and I both agree that experience and intuition are both ways in which we experience the world. I am not sure that we agree that these are "reliable" until they pass scientific muster.


Yeah...
That was pretty much my point




Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 3:12:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Much as I respect science, it's not the only way we reliably experience the world.

What exactly are those other ways we might reliably experience the world?

I've explained this three times already. Please take a look. Thanks!




TreasureKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 3:14:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

It appears, however, that you only want confirmation of your own beliefs.


And of course you do not.


You are entitled to infer that if you want.  However, you'd be incorrect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

On rare occasions, I've even changed my mind.


Would you care to share?


Not at this time, but I can assure you it's not been from anything you've said.




subfever -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 3:22:50 PM)

quote:

Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur


Masses of critical thinkers would not suit the agenda of those at the top of the food chain.

Critical thinking and logical deduction would move us all towards most religions' ideal values for humanity.




Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 3:26:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Tim and I both agree that experience and intuition are both ways in which we experience the world. I am not sure that we agree that these are "reliable" until they pass scientific muster.


[B]Yeah...
That was pretty much my point.

And yet, we're left with the experiences and the demonstrable phenomena I described. What do you find objectionable in those accounts?

Take a look some day at Zen in the Art of Archery. What's at work here? Not God. Not something science explains. Then what?

Four centuries ago, David Hume wrote a fun bit of (intentional) double speak pointing out that, strictly speaking, we can't even reliably point to the existence of cause and effect, as long coincidence would also account for this. His point was that thought systems are based on assumptions. That's what the more rapid science vs. religion debaters miss. Were I to relate my music performance story to a religious person, that person might well think, "Duh--that's God, obviously....I just can't prove it." The science minded person might say, "Well, there's a scientific cause and effect for this--I just can't tell you what it is." In each case, these people are merely applying their set of assumptions to a set of circumstances only other musicians are going to understand.

Note I said "science minded." I don't think any real scientist would agree with some of the positions related here, especially not in the certainly and reliance on conclusions. Until one can read something like Gould's "Sex, Drugs, Disasters and the Extinction of Dinosaurs" and get that the science isn't the heat, the plants, the comet, or the dinosaurs, but the iridium, we're left with a shadow of science, not it's essence.

And yes, a similar case can be made for the religious minded, granted. The point here is that arguing inside a false dichotomy is predictably going to prove a dead end.





thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 3:34:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

It appears, however, that you only want confirmation of your own beliefs.


And of course you do not.


You are entitled to infer that if you want.  However, you'd be incorrect.

So you do only want confirmation of your own beliefs...Thank you for your candor

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

On rare occasions, I've even changed my mind.


Would you care to share?


Not at this time, but I can assure you it's not been from anything you've said.



You claim to be capable of changing your mind but when asked to show evidence of such you choose to make a snide remark towards me and refuse to answer the question which you yourself begged.
Dats kewel






thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 3:37:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Much as I respect science, it's not the only way we reliably experience the world.

What exactly are those other ways we might reliably experience the world?

I've explained this three times already. Please take a look. Thanks!

Yes I saw that but it still does not pass muster until one applies the scientific method.
I was hoping to get you to expand your position.







thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 3:46:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Tim and I both agree that experience and intuition are both ways in which we experience the world. I am not sure that we agree that these are "reliable" until they pass scientific muster.


[B]Yeah...
That was pretty much my point.

And yet, we're left with the experiences and the demonstrable phenomena I described. What do you find objectionable in those accounts?

Take a look some day at Zen in the Art of Archery. What's at work here? Not God. Not something science explains. Then what?

"Zen and the art of Archery,motorcycle maintainence,...etc were novels not fact.
Then of course there is "Zen and the art of divebombing" http://www.friesian.com/divebomb.htm


Four centuries ago, David Hume wrote a fun bit of (intentional) double speak pointing out that, strictly speaking, we can't even reliably point to the existence of cause and effect, as long coincidence would also account for this.

Again "if and only if"


His point was that thought systems are based on assumptions.


Did'nt DesCartes regress past that to the primary and then work forward?

That's what the more rapid science vs. religion debaters miss. Were I to relate my music performance story to a religious person, that person might well think, "Duh--that's God, obviously....I just can't prove it." The science minded person might say, "Well, there's a scientific cause and effect for this--I just can't tell you what it is."

That is your assumption.
The scientific person does have the capacity to explane musical talent in the same way that science explanes the talent of Michael Jordan.

In each case, these people are merely applying their set of assumptions to a set of circumstances only other musicians are going to understand.

Now that is the same "Harley Davidson" mindset that is so easy to debunk.
(the T shirt that says" If I have to explane it to you you would not understand")


Note I said "science minded." I don't think any real scientist would agree with some of the positions related here, especially not in the certainly and reliance on conclusions. Until one can read something like Gould's "Sex, Drugs, Disasters and the Extinction of Dinosaurs" and get that the science isn't the heat, the plants, the comet, or the dinosaurs, but the iridium, we're left with a shadow of science, not it's essence.

Actually "Science" is just our best guess using a set of parameters which in the past have given reasonably accurate data...unlike religion.


And yes, a similar case can be made for the religious minded, granted. The point here is that arguing inside a false dichotomy is predictably going to prove a dead end.

True







taleon -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/2/2010 4:12:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You went from "way of knowing" to absolute truth, a claim I never made. Then you mentioned using methodology to move to predictive power--and this is indeed a way of knowing.

A claim you never made, but a claim many religions do make. And therein science and religion are opposed. Science doesn't claim to be the guardian and defender of the truth, but religion, in my experience, often does exactly that.

quote:

Even when Einstein superseded Newton, apples, when dropped, fall, and I can rely on this information as certain within my local gravitational field---even though we have no idea what gravity is or how it works, just that it's there and related to mass.

True.

quote:

I then clearly moved to things we know from experience. You question who decides this is "valid"--clearly, the one with the experiential knowledge. Seriously, do you doubt all experiences you haven't tested? How would you function? We can and do rely on experience as a guide--and reasonably so.

On a day to day basis, I don't doubt all the experience I haven't tested. Indeed, I wouldn't be able to cross the street if I did. But, as I've noted in another post in this thread, I know that my experiences are not the best standard to judge the world with. Your mileage may vary, but some of my experiences turn out to be spectacularly misleading or even flat out wrong, when I do test them. The link I posted earlier had a few examples of visual illusions. I find that a rather shocking way of illustrating how incredibly deceiving your experience can be. Understanding that my experiences aren't all that reliable to explain the world around me, I gladly fall back on methods which I think do a better job.

quote:

A concept like Tao, which I first learned and studied seriously as a young musician--I can tell you that there is more than ourselves, or that at least it seems that way, and that by letting go one can learn to access and even direct it to accomplish more than one can do unaided. I can even teach other musicians how to do this. Accomplished T'ai Chi practitioners can do the same, demonstrating amazing feats, which I've also witnessed and, to a lesser degree than as a musician, experienced.

What do you mean by "letting go"?

quote:

Now, to turn this to science, we'd need a hypothesis about measurable causality. At least at present, we don't have that, only the observable phenomena and the duplicable experiential results. Yet it's a way of knowing that we can use practically.

Back to Newton. You mentioned it yourself, we can experience his laws first hand, and we can test his equations. It would be great if the same applies to the experience you describe. If you can write down how to duplicate that effect, I'll try to duplicate it.

quote:

The point is, the dichotomies presented are assumptions, not established reality.

If you feel that personal experiences are a way of exploring the world, just as the scientific method is a way of exploring the world... then you'd find no disagreement from me. But you mentioned that "Religion and science are not diametrically opposed". I still can't agree, and I can't see how shared and repeatable experiences have anything to do with, say, Christianity. Or Judaism. Or Islam.

It could be that we just have different definitions of the word religion. For me, religions explain the universe based on a certain set of basic assumptions. These assumptions are not to be questioned, but rather they are presented as truths. You need faith to accept these assumptions. Some of these assumptions may resonate with personal experiences, but that doesn't make these assumptions true (as you yourself, if I remember correctly, have noted somewhere already). And there is my beef with religion.




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875