RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it....

RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (Full Version)

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

Message

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/26/2016 6:56:32 PM)
quote: Your operative claim is that the essence of science (and therefore its method) is a philosophical assumption. What a torturous path you took, and a waste of time. Why didn't you just ask me? I said it before. I will own it. Empiricism assumes reality is made of matter. It is materialism successfully applied. Can't say the same for idealism or dualism can we?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/26/2016 7:16:11 PM)
quote: Should scientists gather and measure ghosts? Why not? If they (whatever it is that people call ghosts) are measurable, then why not measure them? Should any phenomenon be ignored simply because people assign it to paranormal? Would it not be the job of scientists to measure and study such phenomenon to determine their nature and perhaps their cause?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/26/2016 7:19:07 PM)
quote: Empiricism assumes reality is made of matter. Actually no. It is the belief that knowledge comes primarily from sensory input. In and of itself it says nothing about the nature of reality, only our understanding of it. You like to redefine things don't you?

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/26/2016 8:08:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Your operative claim is that the essence of science (and therefore its method) is a philosophical assumption. What a torturous path you took, and a waste of time. Why didn't you just ask me? I said it before. I will own it. Empiricism assumes reality is made of matter. It is materialism successfully applied. Can't say the same for idealism or dualism can we? The word you used was materialism, and as already pointed out empiricism does not assume that reality is "made of matter". That's just you, not empiricism. K.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/26/2016 11:57:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Empiricism assumes reality is made of matter. Actually no. It is the belief that knowledge comes primarily from sensory input. In and of itself it says nothing about the nature of reality, only our understanding of it. You like to redefine things don't you? He's a regular Fred Astaire that way, but I digress.... Empirical knowledge is derived from or guided by experience or experiment. ~Source. The English term "empirical" derives from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, which is cognate with and translates to the Latin experientia, from which we derive the word "experience" and the related "experiment". ~Source It may therefore bear clarifying that experience includes more than just inputs via our senses from the external world. It also includes emotions, feelings and proprioceptions of bodily states, all of which constitute empirical data, and all of which have been cited in support of people's beliefs that there is more to life and the universe than just the physical. But of course, experience doesn't really count to our self-proclaimed "empiricist" except when he's inviting heretics to step in front of a train. K.

Musicmystery -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 5:36:17 AM)
Problematic for your take on empiricism is that it calls into question the reliability of that "data." If we then act on that unreliable data as if it were knowledge, we've left science and entered belief.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 6:13:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Problematic for your take on empiricism is that it calls into question the reliability of that "data." If we then act on that unreliable data as if it were knowledge, we've left science and entered belief. That is the whole point of Kirata's attempt to loosen the discipline against emotional bias in science: he wants to use science to justify his beliefs in a non-material reality regardless of the widely accepted standard model of particles. He is like Saul on the road to Damascus. He has a vision. Unlike Saul, K can't get many people to believe in his vision. To mix metaphors, K is also a bit of a Don Quixote.

Musicmystery -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 10:08:25 AM)
No, I don't think so. Kirata has in the past made a clear point that between hard science and mere belief is a wide swath of unclaimed territory. To dismiss that territory in any direction as merely the land of the ignorant is to take quite a leap away from logic -- and there's nothing scientific about doing so. Reality is, there's much that's unexplained, and it's irrational to pretend otherwise.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 11:26:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No, I don't think so. Kirata has in the past made a clear point that between hard science and mere belief is a wide swath of unclaimed territory. To dismiss that territory in any direction as merely the land of the ignorant is to take quite a leap away from logic -- and there's nothing scientific about doing so. Reality is, there's much that's unexplained, and it's irrational to pretend otherwise. There has always been much that is unexplained. The paradox is that there is more to be explained the more we learn. Kirata tries imo to narrow the gap between science and belief by weakening the rigors of the scientific method (in whatever manifestations and sequences) when he makes the breathlessly incredible statement that our emotional perceptions should be included (totally anathema to hard science) and at the same time assigning to science the extremely optimistic task of "discovering the ultimate nature of reality." So, not only are we doing science wrong we must focus on the ultimate goal he has set. His tactic is to pursue a wedge much like the creationists are using to get their foot into the door of biology classrooms. If science is not done according to his precepts and its assigned goal is not attained, science fails and we should move on to what? Does he propose some alternate way of knowing that will be more successful? I have not seen it.

Musicmystery -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 11:40:55 AM)
I don't think that's an accurate assessment.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 12:20:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Problematic for your take on empiricism is that it calls into question the reliability of that "data." If we then act on that unreliable data as if it were knowledge, we've left science and entered belief. Oh, I agree. But I think that the empirical data of experience, especially when experiences of a type are shared by many people, can be evidence of something going on that merits study. To argue otherwise on the basis of physicalist assumptions burdens science with doctrine. K.

JeffBC -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 12:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Oh, I agree. But I think that the empirical data of experience, especially when experiences of a type are shared by many people, can be evidence of something going on that merits study. To argue otherwise on the basis of physicalist assumptions burdens science with doctrine. Personally I think anything which tickles someone's curiosity merits study. I also think that if you can do that study in a scientific format then it makes the study a scientific study. If you can't, then it makes it a philosophical/religious study. I have no problem with either kind although I do dislike getting them confused. In point of fact, many things in science start out as philosophy. The debate around string theory currently points this out. and on the other a determination to explain virtually everything we observe in purely physical terms. In my view, the second is nothing more or less than an attempt to enlist science as a proxy warrior for a philosophical assumption that has become enshrined as doctrine. This part I disagree with (assuming I understand you correctly). Yes, science attempts to explain everything it can in "physical" (as opposed to metaphysical) terms. In fact, wouldn't science be the line which divides those two concepts? By that I mean that many things started out as metaphysical discussions and, as our understanding grew, turned into physical ones. The only philosophical assumption I can see in that is the assumption that at some level the world around us is understandable. So far that's worked out pretty well for us. It gives us stuff like the internet so we can have this conversation. Has it answered all our questions? Hardly. In fact, every time science answers a handful of questions dozens more seem to pop up. But that doesn't invalidate the process in my mind.

Musicmystery -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 1:03:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Problematic for your take on empiricism is that it calls into question the reliability of that "data." If we then act on that unreliable data as if it were knowledge, we've left science and entered belief. Oh, I agree. But I think that the empirical data of experience, especially when experiences of a type are shared by many people, can be evidence of something going on that merits study. To argue otherwise on the basis of physicalist assumptions burdens science with doctrine. K. Granted. To pretend there's no data, just because it isn't readily quantifiable, isn't very scientific.

dcnovice -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 1:12:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Problematic for your take on empiricism is that it calls into question the reliability of that "data." If we then act on that unreliable data as if it were knowledge, we've left science and entered belief. Oh, I agree. But I think that the empirical data of experience, especially when experiences of a type are shared by many people, can be evidence of something going on that merits study. To argue otherwise on the basis of physicalist assumptions burdens science with doctrine. K. Granted. To pretend there's no data, just because it isn't readily quantifiable, isn't very scientific. I don't have a dog in this fight, but curiosity is getting the better of me: What kind of experience and what kind of data?

Musicmystery -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 1:23:47 PM)
I can't speak for Kirata, but for example -- suppose we have a string of strange occurrences, something we wouldn't have believed, but we saw it. And others experienced similar things. We could fairly say we don't have anything approaching a scientific explanation at this point. And we don't want to go inventing speculations as if fact. But we also don't want to pretend it didn't happen. Doesn't that help?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 2:27:24 PM)
quote: What kind of experience and what kind of data? Call a black man a useless nigger and see what happens. Not measurable per se, but still a valid experience and worthwhile data.

dcnovice -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 2:42:51 PM)
quote: I can't speak for Kirata, but for example -- suppose we have a string of strange occurrences, something we wouldn't have believed, but we saw it. And others experienced similar things. Like, say, Lourdes or Fatima? Yes, my Catholic roots are showing. [:)] quote: We could fairly say we don't have anything approaching a scientific explanation at this point. And we don't want to go inventing speculations as if fact. But we also don't want to pretend it didn't happen. Fair enough.

Musicmystery -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 3:31:38 PM)
Especially if Lourdes or Fatima happened regularly and were replicable, even if we didn't understand why. But essentially, yes.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 4:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Problematic for your take on empiricism is that it calls into question the reliability of that "data." If we then act on that unreliable data as if it were knowledge, we've left science and entered belief. Oh, I agree. But I think that the empirical data of experience, especially when experiences of a type are shared by many people, can be evidence of something going on that merits study. To argue otherwise on the basis of physicalist assumptions burdens science with doctrine. K. Granted. To pretend there's no data, just because it isn't readily quantifiable, isn't very scientific. Neither is the data scientific if it is not quantifiable. Nor is it valid to suggest that reported crowd experiences or even repeated individual experiences such as extraterrestrial kidnappings have been ignored. I believe you are unintentionally setting up a straw man with that assumption. The question arises when do you crossover from the hard sciences into social psychology or the investigations of hallucinations or fraud? It is problematic and burdensome to wrap self-reported and/or contradictory human experiences in the mantle of science and then complain that science is not fair to such data.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/27/2016 5:44:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Nor is it valid to suggest that reported crowd experiences or even repeated individual experiences such as extraterrestrial kidnappings have been ignored. I believe you are unintentionally setting up a straw man with that assumption. You certainly do have a droll sense of humor. K.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875