quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubbelganger

Where is brainiacsub making an Appeal to Authority?

Go back to pages 5 and 6, and Google Peter Atkins.

Firm

Firm, you are grasping. I was making an argument for meritocracy. That is not that same thing as appeal to authority. You are trying to tell me that all opinions have equal weight? I was saying that when it comes to science, the opinions of a scientist hold more weight than those of someone not formally trained in matters of science. If you had a question about music, whose opinion would you value more, mine or Tim's? That doesn't mean that you accept that Tim must be correct, just that his opinion should be of more value than mine because of his expertise. Even the dumbest people reading this thread would never accuse me of reason by defective induction. C'mon Firm, you aren't beig fair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

I'm not sure the whole false dichotomy thing really works here. I feel as if religiously capitalized individuals would be a little too enthusiastic about this conclusion.

I'd argue more radically that all the mystical, transcendental feelings of infinity and onward () could also be expressed and experienced, to the same effect, within the coordinates of science. In other words, science, in addition to being science proper, can also, in a very separate capacity, be religion as well, for those who so desire.

My critical point is that science itself should always be contested, precisely for not being science. Here is, somewhat abstractly, why I want to reject calling the matter a false dichotomy. There is a very essential structural difference that cannot be reduced, namely, that science is never really science, there is this sort of irreducible gap, whereas religion is always religion.

"Science for me is very close to art.  Scientific discovery is an irrational act. It's an intuition which turns out to be reality at the end of it  --and I see no difference between a scientist developing a marvelous discovery and an artist making a painting." 
- C. Rubbia, Nobelist and director of CERN


"Science...  is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is."   
- C.G. Jung


"The person who thinks there can be any real conflict between science and religion must be either very young in science or very ignorant of religion." 
- Joseph Henry, early American physicist


"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
- Carl Sagan


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
 -Albert Einstein


"Scientists are not the paragons of rationality, objectivity, openmindedness and humility that many of them might like others to believe." 
- Marcello Truzzi, CSICOP


"One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
-- J. D. Watson  "The Double Helix"


"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
- William James

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Be careful. You just made the OP's point.

This is not a war. It's not a matter of taking sides. If this supports the OP, great. If it doesn't, great.

quote:

Every major scientific advancement has also been a break with existing religious thought.

Nonsense. How was relativity, for example, a break with religious thought? A break with Newton, yes.

quote:

Religion in no way ever seeks to reinvent itself

Ever heard of the Reformation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

brainiac,

It was 10 pages ago, and spanned 3 or 4 after.

You quoted the article that I cited, where Peter Atkins claimed that "no twue" scientist would believe in religion.  There was even a joke about it.  Music had to explain that it was a joke several times.

You seemed to be using the Atkin's quote as justification for saying that "since a scientist said it, they are best qualified to know".

I was pointing out that Atkins is, first of all, a chemist (albeit apparently a pretty smart one), and not an expert in epistemology and not necessarily an expert in "what a scientist is".  And, in fact, he has some very, very strong overtly stated biases on the subject. He is a partisan, not someone who would even pretend to have an open mind on the subject.

There's more, if you really want to get into the discussion all over again.

Firm

quote:

Of course it's not a war, it's a discussion. If having your views challenged turns this in to a war, then I'm sorry you feel that way.

quote:

You took my statement about religion reinventing itself out of context. I was saying that religion does not encourage critical thought, and the Reformation is no exception.

quote:

LA: That said, I'm not so hard on non-Academics and often try to get them to show me how they have come to their conclusions. As for academics, I'm a total stickler for having them declare their methodology and quote their sources before making statements because they should know better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubbelganger

Where is brainiacsub making an Appeal to Authority?

Go back to pages 5 and 6, and Google Peter Atkins.

Firm

Firm, you are grasping. I was making an argument for meritocracy. That is not that same thing as appeal to authority. You are trying to tell me that all opinions have equal weight? I was saying that when it comes to science, the opinions of a scientist hold more weight than those of someone not formally trained in matters of science. If you had a question about music, whose opinion would you value more, mine or Tim's? That doesn't mean that you accept that Tim must be correct, just that his opinion should be of more value than mine because of his expertise. Even the dumbest people reading this thread would never accuse me of reason by defective induction. C'mon Firm, you aren't beig fair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

So you aren't the dumbest person reading this thread, no matter what Firm says.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

please link me

http://www.collarchat.com/searchpro.asp?author=Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

The point overall, the one sticking in people's craws, is the false dichotomy of describing experience only in terms of science vs. religion. As Firm pointed out early on, we have religious scientists,

You dont remember the part where his less then complete post was totally refuted by ....facts.

so that notion is already suspect. But just as we have people who see anything not conservative as liberal, when in fact there is a world of nuance outside of the artificial left/right paradigm, so too does the science/religion lens distort reality, denying a wealth of experience beyond that constraint.

Do you want to discuss nuance or would you prefer to discuss basics?

That's not to say religion doesn't unreasonably go after science at times--it does. But buying into that divide doesn't make a debater smarter or less culpable--just gullible, and equally not thinking freely.

Thompson, this is silly. I pointed to a single point, correctly made. You reference a different point on a different matter to refute it? Come on. That's ridiculous.

You pointed out that ky made a statement that was shown to be false. I reminded you of that

What are you talking about, nuance or basics? Another false dichotomy? I would rather look at reality rather than oversimplifications, especially when they distort.

You said that there was a false dichotomy of science vs. religion then went on to say that something that you felt but could not prove but could teach to others was another aspect of this problem and that it needed to be inserted into this discussion.
This "something" is nuance...the dichotomy ,false or not, is the basic.

I'm getting the feeling that some aren't even able to conceive that an either/or view of the world is flawed and distorts, that other options even might exist. I hope I'm mistaken in that feeling. But it would explain the reactions.
Either or is but one way of looking at a problem.
If one wishes to simplify a problem one would logically start by seperating the problem into the smallest fractions that can be solved easily then assemble the collective results and test for accuracy.
It is in this simplification process that the either/or dichotomy is usefull.

quote:

When "I" have a strong ego, that's simply confidence.

Some call it bullshit.

quote:

I'm not overly concerned about what firm says. Panda has quite a bit of experience regarding my posts, when I used to post as HK, or currently elsewhere as both HK and Schlüßelberg.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
The point overall, the one sticking in people's craws, is the false dichotomy of describing experience only in terms of science vs. religion. As Firm pointed out early on, we have religious scientists, so that notion is already suspect. But just as we have people who see anything not conservative as liberal, when in fact there is a world of nuance outside of the artificial left/right paradigm, so too does the science/religion lens distort reality, denying a wealth of experience beyond that constraint. That's not to say religion doesn't unreasonably go after science at times--it does. But buying into that divide doesn't make a debater smarter or less culpable--just gullible, and equally not thinking freely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Ok, here are some other scientist's thoughts on the subject that I thought appropriate .. or at least humorous.

"Science for me is very close to art.  Scientific discovery is an irrational act. It's an intuition which turns out to be reality at the end of it  --and I see no difference between a scientist developing a marvelous discovery and an artist making a painting." 
- C. Rubbia, Nobelist and director of CERN

Because this person likens art to science then this means?????


"Science...  is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is."   
- C.G. Jung

Jung...tell us again what field of science he spent his life doing?


"The person who thinks there can be any real conflict between science and religion must be either very young in science or very ignorant of religion." 
- Joseph Henry, early American physicist
A scientest born in the 18th century believes in god....alert the media...


"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
- Carl Sagan

In your world spirituality is the same as religion????


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
 -Albert Einstein

Here is the 1941 lecture that quote comes from...too bad you did not read it...it does not mean what you would have us believe it means.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

"Scientists are not the paragons of rationality, objectivity, openmindedness and humility that many of them might like others to believe." 
- Marcello Truzzi, CSICOP

Here the author seems to be talking about the problems that SOME scientist have with objectivity etc.


"One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
-- J. D. Watson  "The Double Helix"
Again you point to a major scientist castigating lesser pretenders as making your case that....what was your point again???

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
- William James

A physcologist points out that some people dont think.....damn you have an amazing grasp of the obvious.

I'd take any of them over Atkins as an "authority".

To quote from your source
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."


Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

And here I always thought critical thinking involved being open to other people's ideas

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

brainiac,

It was 10 pages ago, and spanned 3 or 4 after.

You quoted the article that I cited, where Peter Atkins claimed that "no twue" scientist would believe in religion.  There was even a joke about it.  Music had to explain that it was a joke several times.

You seemed to be using the Atkin's quote as justification for saying that "since a scientist said it, they are best qualified to know".

I was pointing out that Atkins is, first of all, a chemist (albeit apparently a pretty smart one), and not an expert in epistemology and not necessarily an expert in "what a scientist is".  And, in fact, he has some very, very strong overtly stated biases on the subject. He is a partisan, not someone who would even pretend to have an open mind on the subject.

There's more, if you really want to get into the discussion all over again.

Firm

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I was only defending myself against your accusation of fallacy of defective induction. If you are saying that my statements were in response to a joke 10 pages ago, why are you bringing it up now. I thought it was settled.