RE: The Covert Messiah

RE: The Covert Messiah (Full Version)

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

Message

RedMagic1 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 1:46:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Facts remain facts. No, the opposite tends to be the case. There is a half-life of facts, after which they expire, and are replaced by new facts. Robust theories remain true even when the facts change. Newton's theory of gravitation was not invalidated by Einstein's theory of relativity. Rather, it was strengthened, except for some special situations. Similarly, the theory of evolution remains true, even though lots of biological specifics have altered since Darwin. Not a very useful link below, but at least you'll know that the idea has been around for over 50 years, and I didn't just make it up for an internet argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 2:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Newton's theory of gravitation... Since this is the second time you've mentioned Newton's "theory of gravitation," it bears pointing out that he didn't have one. He determined his laws empirically. He didn't have the slightest clue what gravity was, or how it worked, or even how it could possibly work. quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Facts remain facts. No, the opposite tends to be the case. There is a half-life of facts, after which they expire, and are replaced by new facts. I'll give you credit for a droll sense of humor, but "facts" with half-lives weren't facts in the first place. The history of science is full of them, and that should provide sufficient example of why this ecclesiastical nonsense is destroying what's left of our language's ability to support clear thinking. K.

RedMagic1 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 2:28:56 PM)
Are you unwilling to accept that words can have more than one meaning? This is especially true in specialized nomenclature, for example in the sciences. "Theory" and "fact" don't mean what you claim them to mean. That is to say, practicing scientists do not use the same definitions you are using. I'm not making a joke at all. The half-life of facts is a well known epistemological phenomenon. In order to make reliable predictions about the natural world, we need to obtain theories whose predictions are strong enough to withstand the decay of current knowledge. Re: your comments about Newton: science doesn't answer "why" in the sense you mean. Scientific theories make predictions, and the more accurate the predictions are, the more the theory is respected. I don't know whether you are trying to move the goalposts on me because you don't want to understand what I am saying, or because you refuse to understand what I am saying, but just because you use words incorrectly does not make you right.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 2:46:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 "Theory" and "fact" don't mean what you claim them to mean. That is to say, practicing scientists do not use the same definitions you are using. They mean exactly what I'm claiming they mean, and there is nothing "scientific" about priests redefining words to confer upon their Church the ability to pronounce its catechism a "fact". This discussion is being conducted in plain English, using the plain English meanings of those words. If you don't like the consequences, and I can see why you don't, that's just tough shit. To come in here and insist that your meanings are superior, and that in order to be correct we should be conducting our discussion in terms of your definitions, is priestly nonsense. You're not in your Church here, and we're not your faithful. Get over it. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 3:43:58 PM)
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), Knowledge is Power. And that is the core issue here.

RedMagic1 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 4:04:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata there is nothing "scientific" about priests redefining words to confer upon their Church the ability to pronounce its catechism a "fact". This is the exact opposite of a priesthood. A priesthood argues that they have the only true knowledge, and the world must be interpreted through them. I'm saying exactly the opposite: if you educate yourself in the material world, instead of being content with the answers from the authority of your current mind, you can improve your understanding of the universe tremendously. There is no mystery here -- at least none of human making. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science That is what those words mean, and, in some sense, have meant for hundreds of years. These are not secret definitions. They are part of a methodology that has healed the sick, permitted the lame to walk, and revealed secrets of the cosmos -- in a way no priesthood ever has.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 6:18:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 A priesthood argues that they have the only true knowledge... And you are arguing that you have the only true knowledge of what words mean. quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 if you educate yourself in the material world, instead of being content with the answers from the authority of your current mind, you can improve your understanding of the universe tremendously. There ya go, now you're being honest. This is all about dissuading people from thinking in any except the approved ways and impugning the intelligence of those who contest the holy definitions of the Church. K.

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/12/2013 7:48:05 PM)
The great thing about a strawman is that there are plenty of straws for you to grasp at.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/13/2013 3:20:17 PM)
quote: And you are arguing that you have the only true knowledge of what words mean. So, true knowledge is unattainable, even true knowledge of the meaning of the words that have become central to this little discussion - words like 'fact', 'true' and 'theory', for instance. Time for bed for this thread, then.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/13/2013 4:18:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Time for bed for this thread, then. See now, this is why I support keeping the English disarmed. The thread was almost asleep, and about to fall off the front page into oblivion, when you come along to wish it to bed by bumping it up to the top of the stack! If you were allowed to own guns, you wouldn't have a foot left to stand on. [:D] K.

vincentML -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/13/2013 4:24:18 PM)
quote: There ya go, now you're being honest. This is all about dissuading people from thinking in any except the approved ways and impugning the intelligence of those who contest the holy definitions of the Church. It is interesting to see you attack the scientific method when in the past on these Boards you appealed to it to support NDE, the projection of consciousness, and the efficacy of prayer, as I recall. Surprised. This whole business of 'scientism' and the 'church of science' seems to be just a debate device to reduce the stature of the opponent (science) What other ways of thinking are there that have been as successful as the strategies of science in uncovering new information and new models of reality, to say nothing of new technologies which have improved our lives? Crying 'scientism' and alluding to science as a church is similar to the phony tactic of claiming atheism is a religion. They are both the last resort of people who have no significant alternative to offer, and so they feel the need to bring the debate to an end with silly and denigrating accusations. My opinion of course, but until someone has a productive alternative they have no standing as critics of scientific strategies. Really, you can think in any fashion you wish. Science does not prevent modes of thinking. It only requires reality testing.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/13/2013 4:39:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: There ya go, now you're being honest. This is all about dissuading people from thinking in any except the approved ways and impugning the intelligence of those who contest the holy definitions of the Church. It is interesting to see you attack the scientific method when in the past on these Boards you appealed to it to support NDE, the projection of consciousness, and the efficacy of prayer, as I recall. Surprised. The scientific method featured nowhere in my post, nor was it the subject of the post. The subject was the redefinition of words to allow the Church to claim that it's "theories" are "proven," and the concomitant condescending attitude toward anyone who declines to accept that holy creed. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML This whole business of 'scientism' and the 'church of science' seems to be just a debate device to reduce the stature of the opponent (science) It is definitely my intention to attack the stature of Scientism. When science becomes a religion, it isn't science anymore. And frankly, I'm surprised to see you going on to defend science as if you perceived some commonality between the two. Scientism is a grotesque mockery of science. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Crying 'scientism' and alluding to science as a church is similar to the phony tactic of claiming atheism is a religion. They are both the last resort of people who have no significant alternative to offer, and so they feel the need to bring the debate to an end with silly and denigrating accusations. That might be true, if it was happening. But nobody, anywhere, has alluded to science as a church. The comparison was explicitly between Scientism and a Church. So perhaps we are, now, at the last resort of people who feel a need to bring debate to an end with denigrating accusations. K.

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/13/2013 4:50:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML This whole business of 'scientism' and the 'church of science' seems to be just a debate device to reduce the stature of the opponent (science) What other ways of thinking are there that have been as successful as the strategies of science in uncovering new information and new models of reality, to say nothing of new technologies which have improved our lives? Crying 'scientism' and alluding to science as a church is similar to the phony tactic of claiming atheism is a religion. They are both the last resort of people who have no significant alternative to offer, and so they feel the need to bring the debate to an end with silly and denigrating accusations. My opinion of course, but until someone has a productive alternative they have no standing as critics of scientific strategies. Really, you can think in any fashion you wish. Science does not prevent modes of thinking. It only requires reality testing. Well put.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/13/2013 5:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Well put. Since you're a rock-climber, and supporting Vincent here, would it fair to say that you're his athletic supporter? [:)] K.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/13/2013 6:00:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML What other ways of thinking are there that have been as successful as the strategies of science in uncovering new information and new models of reality, to say nothing of new technologies which have improved our lives? None other, Vincent, as I have no doubt you realise. The best rightie-intellectual wrigglers in the world know this. The rest is really is just obfuscatory flannel, and they know it.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/13/2013 7:28:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML What other ways of thinking are there that have been as successful as the strategies of science in uncovering new information and new models of reality, to say nothing of new technologies which have improved our lives? None other, Vincent, as I have no doubt you realise. The best rightie-intellectual wrigglers in the world know this. The rest is really is just obfuscatory flannel, and they know it. On the other hand, of course, nobody has argued the contrary. Have you two always had this peculiar affection for fish? K.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/13/2013 11:47:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science That is what those words mean, and, in some sense, have meant for hundreds of years. From your first link... As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force. Facts are not "inductive in nature." They are actual. And from your second link... a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. Theories are not facts. K.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/14/2013 12:50:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science That is what those words mean, and, in some sense, have meant for hundreds of years. From your first link... As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force. Facts are not "inductive in nature." They are actual. And from your second link... a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. Theories are not facts. K. However a theory may be so pervasively established, such as the theory of evolution or the atomic theory, that it is completely inconceivable that they are not facts. Offspring are no more going to stop inheriting genetic material from their parents than chemistry is going to stop working.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/14/2013 1:30:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentM This whole business of 'scientism' and the 'church of science' seems to be just a debate device to reduce the stature of the opponent (science) What other ways of thinking are there that have been as successful as the strategies of science in uncovering new information and new models of reality, to say nothing of new technologies which have improved our lives? Crying 'scientism' and alluding to science as a church is similar to the phony tactic of claiming atheism is a religion. They are both the last resort of people who have no significant alternative to offer, and so they feel the need to bring the debate to an end with silly and denigrating accusations. My opinion of course, but until someone has a productive alternative they have no standing as critics of scientific strategies. Really, you can think in any fashion you wish. Science does not prevent modes of thinking. It only requires reality testing. Sorry Vincent but this is simply not so. I have seen no one attacking science from my side of this discussion. I have seen people (including myself) specifically attack Scientism. The difference is critical - it is the difference between a wholly legitimate and highly successful methodology and a deceptive ideology that fraudulently represents itself as a seamless continuation of that methodology. From where I sit, there is no intention to attack Science, either overtly or covertly. Actually, the attack on Science doesn't come from my perspective but in the distortion of science that enables Scientism. There is no basis in the scientific method for the claim that the scientific method is the only possible avenue to discovering truth. This claim is purely ideological - as such it cannot be part of a methodology. It is this claim, and the specific ideology that enables and necessitates it and the dangerous deceitful conflation of science with Scientism, that have been the sole targets of my critique, as I have specified several times. Scientism can only exist in a flagrant contravention of the basic rules of science. As far as I am concerned, the whole discussion would have ended if others had simply denied they were coming from a Scientism perspective. It is significant that no one has made that denial.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/14/2013 2:13:39 AM)
No one is following the totally bogus and nonexistent philosophy of scientism. Now take your woo and go away.

Page: << < prev 28 29 30 [31] 32 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625