Separation of Science and State

[Rhyfelwyr]

Is there a name for it like with secularism?

Anyway...

An article (http://www.reasonforliberty.com/anarcho-capitalism/separation-of-science-and-state.html)

So if a religious nut decides his holy book reveals the 'truth' and wants to restrict peoples liberty by telling them they can't eat pork, obviously he can't do that.

But if a scientist decides the scientific method reveals the 'truth' and says the timber industry can't use a forest because of the environment, he gets away with it.

Even more worryingly, these scientists often get much of their funding off of the government and so will naturally dance to its tune.

The only solution to protect against this tyranny is the separation of science and state.

Also, the scientific method should only be taught in school as one of many ways of looking at the world. Science doesn't belong in the classroom any more or less than religion does. Well of course many people will say science is obviously right, but since when did that give them a right to force their views on everyone?

Discuss.

[HoreTore]

Nonsense.

Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.

[gaelic cowboy]

Your troll powers are weak my young Padawan

The scientist displays evidence which is then testable by someone else, this idea is then accepted until proven otherwise.

The religious guy just says god told me and that's it.

[PanzerJaeger]

But if a scientist decides the scientific method reveals the 'truth' and says the timber industry can't use a forest because of the environment, he gets away with it.

He would obviously have to offer some evidence of environmental damage.

That, I think, is the difference between science and religion. Science can and has been wrong plenty of times, but it is at least based on something tangible.

[Strike For The South]

This isnt very good banter

[CBR]

He would obviously have to offer some evidence of environmental damage.

That, I think, is the difference between science and religion. Science can and has been wrong plenty of times, but it is at least based on something tangible.
Tangible?? Is that not related to stuff like facts and knowledge and stuff? Who cares about that when all you need is to read one book and then go by your gut/god feel?

[woad&fangs]

The author of that article has obviously never spent even 5 minutes talking to a scientist. This is creationist propaganda at its worst and uses two of the most annoying arguments for what has got to be the umpteenth time.

So let me state for the record that...
1) Science is not a religion.
2) Scientists are not some homogeneous cabal. Scientists actually have some pretty massive incentives to argue with each other and to prove each other wrong. When 95%+ of scientists agree on something (evolution, global warming, etc.) than you can be pretty dang sure that there is a HUGE amount of evidence behind it.

[The Stranger]

i all invite you to read and join in the debate: Omniscience?

[The Stranger]

The author of that article has obviously never spent even 5 minutes talking to a scientist. This is creationist propaganda at its worst and uses two of the most annoying arguments for what has got to be the umpteenth time.

So let me state for the record that...
1) Science is not a religion.
2) Scientists are not some homogeneous cabal. Scientists actually have some pretty massive incentives to argue with each other and to prove each other wrong. When 95%+ of scientists agree on something (evolution, global warming, etc.) than you can be pretty dang sure that there is a HUGE amount of evidence behind it.

imo a religion is an instute used to supress the people and to keep in power a select group of individuals who believe in a certain truth that allows no other truth to co-exist within the same domain (intelligble domain). what turns a belief into religion is usually when it is not seperated from the state, because a state cannot accept another dominant power within its legal boundaries. sometimes the state is the instrument of the religion, usually the religion is instrument of the state. regardless of whatever original intentions were, science can be used in a similar way and therefore would be turned into some sort of religion. because at the base of every religion is faith and faith cannot be proven or disproven, and since unless its logic or math faith is at the basis of everything synthetical, science can qualify as a religion.

as for argument 2) neither does that go for any religion as shown already by the countless splinter groups within christianity let alone when you would take in account all religions globally. whatever they have all in common though is that they believe in an methaphysical entity. according to your reasoning then we could be pretty sure that it is true that such an entity exists...

its is true that most classic religions are nothing alike science. yet because a zebra is nothing alike a dolphin doesnt mean they arent both mammals.

i am aware that i twist the rules because i have a quite different interpretation of what qualifies something as a religion

[woad&fangs]

People who are religious believe in a metaphysical entity =/= Scientists accept evolutionary theory
People who are religious believe in a metaphysical entity = Scientists use the scientific method

My comment was addressing specific issues, not the philosophies as a whole. The judge of which philosophy is a more accurate depiction of the world should be based on results. In the results department, I'll take the scientific method over prayer any day.

edit: You gave math as an exception. What makes math logic better than science logic or religion in your eyes? In addition, what is your opinion of math in the sciences? Does more math equal a more true answer in your eyes? I'll be involved in mathematical biology research this summer so I am curious about your answer.

[The Stranger]

People who are religious believe in a metaphysical entity =/= Scientists accept evolutionary theory
People who are religious believe in a metaphysical entity = Scientists use the scientific method

My comment was addressing specific issues, not the philosophies as a whole. The judge of which philosophy is a more accurate depiction of the world should be based on results. In the results department, I'll take the scientific method over prayer any day.

edit: You gave math as an exception. What makes math logic better than science logic in your eyes. In addition, what is your opinion of math in the sciences? Does more math equal a more true answer in your eyes? I'll be involved in mathematical biology research this summer so I am curious about your answer.

your point being? a) you dont make right analogies. b) even if it were correct it would be meaningless because the scientific method is any more valid than any other once it comes down to the rudimentary ontological level of the debate.

math/logic isnt better in my eyes. its just that it they are analytic truths and therefor require a different approach. i think you agree with me that a "bachelor is unmarried" is different statement than "all men are tall"

and ofcourse it is your right to take science over prayer any day. i never said you shouldnt or you couldnt. but in what you say is the argument that i make. when it comes down to it, it is just what you like to believe, what you would take over something else any point of the day. its not a solid proof, it is not a truth, but it is gut feeling and upbringing as well in some case. and things being based on result would make it pragmatic not truthfully and i never denied the pragmatic succes of science.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your troll powers are weak my young Padawan

The scientist displays evidence which is then testable by someone else, this idea is then accepted until proven otherwise.

The religious guy just says god told me and that's it.

Paradigm blindness. Scientific "evidence" is provided and tested by the "scientific method". That is no different than religion, where religious evidence is presented and religious methods are used to test that evidence.

Philosophically speaking they are equitably useless/useful.

[gaelic cowboy]

Paradigm blindness. Scientific "evidence" is provided and tested by the "scientific method". That is no different than religion, where religious evidence is presented and religious methods are used to test that evidence.

Philosophically speaking they are equitably useless/useful.

unfortunately paradigm blindness would mean I have to accept there may be another method to figure out the world other than the scientific method.

By your calculation it should be possible to build a church foundations, walls, roof etc etc by the religious method and trust it will stand up.

[The Stranger]

they have been building houses walls and roofs thousands of years before there was anything that remotely looked like the scientific method.

again science and the scientific method are something completely different than technology. though it is true that science is most dominant in the technological domain and nowadays technology is so dependent on science that they cant really be separated.

[gaelic cowboy]

they have been building houses walls and roofs thousands of years before there was anything that remotely looked like the scientific method.

again science and the scientific method are something completely different than technology. though it is true that science is most dominant in the technological domain and nowadays technology is so dependent on science that they cant really be separated.

And yet only the scientific method can tell you why the church stands up the religious method has no such ability.

Plus your not giving enough credit to the deductive powers of ancient peoples, just cos they may not have called it science does not mean they did not understand that different alloys gave differnt properties in casting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Paradigm blindness. Scientific "evidence" is provided and tested by the "scientific method". That is no different than religion, where religious evidence is presented and religious methods are used to test that evidence.

Philosophically speaking they are equitably useless/useful.

What are you talking about? :dizzy2:

When they measure something, it's evidence. It's provided by a ruler or a scale or a thermometer, not by the scientific method :dizzy2:

[The Stranger]

And yet only the scientific method can tell you why the church stands up the religious method has no such ability.

Plus your not giving enough credit to the deductive powers of ancient peoples, just cos they may not have called it science does not mean they did not understand that different alloys gave differnt properties in casting.

it does so only you wouldnt believe it. and no it probably wouldnt provide empirical evidence, because that is the scientific method.

deducing is part of the scientific method it is not solely the scientific method. so i dont see your point.

[The Stranger]

What are you talking about? :dizzy2:

When they measure something, it's evidence. It's provided by a ruler or a scale or a thermometer, not by the scientific method :dizzy2:

empirical evidence is different than per example logical evidence and empirical evidence is the (sole) ingredient of verification is scientific.

[gaelic cowboy]

deducing is part of the scientific method it is not solely the scientific method. so i dont see your point.

Because your were trying to say that merely because people did not have Ipods and whatnot they must have thought buildings stood up because of god.

People were easily smart enough to know that they stood up because they put mortar in between the stones and then built the stone courses up layer by layer.

they did not call it science but they did have the evidence that could prove badly built walls fall down.

[Reenk Roink]

That is one of the weirdest sites I have ever been to in my 5 seconds of browsing it. The fact that they didn't cite Feyerabend's Science in a Free Society also possibly hints that they might be ignorant of his work or have ripped off it.

[The Stranger]

Because your were trying to say that merely because people did not have Ipods and whatnot they must have thought buildings stood up because of god.

People were easily smart enough to know that they stood up because they put mortar in between the stones and then built the stone courses up layer by layer.

they did not call it science but they did have the evidence that could prove badly built walls fall down.

-_- if you dont read what i write than there is no point in exchanging words.

[gaelic cowboy]

-_- if you dont read what i write than there is no point in exchanging words.

if you dont understand your own words I cant help you

that is what your implying when you say


they have been building houses walls and roofs thousands of years before there was anything that remotely looked like the scientific method.

This intimates that people could not understand what they were doing merely because thay did not have a concept of the scientific method, this is wrong they understood well why the building stood up they just didnt sit around thinking about it too much.

[HoreTore]

Uhm....

The hypothetical-deductive method has been around since man first started using tools... And its also the reason why man learned to use tools...

[Tellos Athenaios]

There's no appreciable difference in reasoning between either method. Both require some kind of inherent logical consistency, both require a simple “law” of causality that makes QED after a proof a logical consistent statement, both extensively use empirical evidence as well as inductive and deductive logic and both are specifically designed to explain the empirical evidence. The difference is in the predictions that they make. Science purely limits itself to reasoning about empirical evidence, i.e. this bridge design will support that much weight. Religion however goes two or three steps further and offers damnation and salvation based on essentially the equivalent of nothing but pure extrapolation of previous theories. So that's theory a assuming theory b assuming theory c explaining some empirical evidence. Example:

After praying to $deity some person is cured. Religion first theorises that praying to $deity will work for curing, then goes on to theorise the existence of $deity and finally theorises that $deity has the “power”/“ability” to cure. After that we take a leap of faith (litteraly) and jump to the concluding theory that $deity may be able to grant you an after life (i.e. the ultimate cure, the cure of death...).

Arguing for a separation of “science” and “state” is useless, since it effectively asks for a separation of “reasoning” and state. Arguing for separation of “religion” and “state” is not quite so useless because all it does is restrict us to empirical evidence.

Of course historically this arose for very different reasons: religion has a tendency to have its followers brutally slaughter those who do not follow it and generally interfering with the personal freedom of non-believers. There's as much empirical evidence to suggest God exists as there is to suggest that all religions are inherently violent. But both are a leap of faith and a jump to conclusions based on other theories, for there is plenty of countering evidence which directly contradicts the theories on which these statements are founded.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This:


What are you talking about? :dizzy2:

When they measure something, it's evidence. It's provided by a ruler or a scale or a thermometer, not by the scientific method :dizzy2:

Is answered by this:


it does so only you wouldnt believe it. and no it probably wouldnt provide empirical evidence, because that is the scientific method.

deducing is part of the scientific method it is not solely the scientific method. so i dont see your point.

Science measures, but measurement is not the only way of gaining information. In answer to why the Church stands up, it stands because all it's arcs were drawn in alignment and the stone is perfectly balanced, or as near as possible. Medieval architects understood form, but they didn't understand things like tensile strength and loadbearing supports. That's why medieval buildings look so different to modern ones, and personally I prefer them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course historically this arose for very different reasons: religion has a tendency to have its followers brutally slaughter those who do not follow it and generally interfering with the personal freedom of non-believers. There's as much empirical evidence to suggest God exists as there is to suggest that all religions are inherently violent. But both are a leap of faith and a jump to conclusions based on other theories, for there is plenty of countering evidence which directly contradicts the theories on which these statements are founded.

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing.

The exception is during times of war, but one only has to look at conflicts of the 20th and 21st Centuries to see that is not a facet of religion, but of human nature.

Rhy's point, I believe, is that 300 years ago Science would have been castigated and restricted for dissagreeing with "obvious" religious truths, while today the opposite is happening.

[The Stranger]

if you dont understand your own words I cant help you

that is what your implying when you say



This intimates that people could not understand what they were doing merely because thay did not have a concept of the scientific method, this is wrong they understood well why the building stood up they just didnt sit around thinking about it too much.

your analogy is wrong.

technology: this is how you build a house, stone by stone.
science: mortar consists of this and that and will dry at this min temp and this max temp because (and the important part is the BECAUSE, it only really starts after the because) we have tested this in 1000 occasions and it has been retested by 10.000 other scientists and all got the same result.
belief/faith/metaphisics/religion/whateveryouwanttocallit: mortar (consists of this and that and) will dry (at this min temp and that max temp) because god wants it so. [per example]

im not saying that the ancient masons didnt know how to build a house, neither am i saying that they didnt know how to improve from experience. they very well understood what they were doing. they saw lightning flashes and thought it was the gods who showed their fury. now think that lightning comes from electrical discharge. the lightning flash is still the same as it was 100.000 years ago, whichever explanation we give to it. only because those masons gave a different explanation doesnt mean they didnt know what they were doing.

and why would you assume that people then would think less about how a building stood up or similar matters than people now?

[a completely inoffensive name]

That website was the biggest facepalm I have read this month. From the article:

BUT, the same Judeo-Muslim majority can get Pork products BANNED from America if a Jewish scientist proves that eating pork is harmful for health.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's conflating that somehow because the scientist had a viewpoint that coincided with the evidence he turned up that his evidence is suddenly invalidated. Secondly, a single "scientist" does not prove anything! For this Jewish scientist to get pork products banned due to being unhealthy, he needs to have his findings verified by at least 2 or 3 other independent scientists/scientific teams/agencies.

And most importantly, by proving that pork is harmful for health, the scientist has not worked towards getting it banned at all! The scientist shows his findings and these findings are used by politicians who ban and unban things. No decent scientist would get politically entangled with his findings, because his credibility would automatically take a hit because you have to be impartial and objective to be open to findings that go against your hypothesis.

Example: The one guy whose findings indicated that vaccines cause autism (and campaigned to get rid of vaccines) was exposed as a fraud who falsified his work. His credentials have been stripped from him.

[ajaxfetish]

Make faith falsifiable in the same way scientific theory is and then the two will be comparable.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

So people can use the government to force their views on people if they are falsifiable?

[ajaxfetish]

So people can use the government to force their views on people if they are falsifiable?

You're gonna need to explicate the dozen or so logical leaps connecting those two statements for me.

Ajax

[Tellos Athenaios]

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing. Coincidentally, explicit freedom of religion provisions didn't emerge until that started happening, either. You got a lot of misery for having the pope interfere with appointing bishops in Germany, you got really rather gruesome wars for having the popes play out France and Spain against each other in Northern Italy; but you got Freedom of religion and Separation of Church and State when the USA was founded. And the secularism is simply borne out of the recognition that where religion is allowed to dictate state policy or where a state is allowed to dictate religious convictions you get a Civil War.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This:



Is answered by this:



Science measures, but measurement is not the only way of gaining information. In answer to why the Church stands up, it stands because all it's arcs were drawn in alignment and the stone is perfectly balanced, or as near as possible. Medieval architects understood form, but they didn't understand things like tensile strength and loadbearing supports. That's why medieval buildings look so different to modern ones, and personally I prefer them.

I like medieval buildings too, at least the ones nice enough to have not been torn down over the years.

But where's the answer? You said that scientific evidence is provided by the scientific method, and I pointed out that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that is not tested or provided by the scientific method, does not have to be verified by the standards of the scientific method. Instead it is tested by the measuring tools themselves.

And I'm not sure what the dispute is supposed to be about, because religion has generally concerned itself with non scientific questions!!! The real contrast would be between the standards of philosophical argument and the religion method of appeal to authority in the form of tradition.


So people can use the government to force their views on people if they are falsifiable?

They can't force views that have been shown to be false.

[Greyblades]

North Korea does.

[The Stranger]

I like medieval buildings too, at least the ones nice enough to have not been torn down over the years.

But where's the answer? You said that scientific evidence is provided by the scientific method, and I pointed out that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that is not tested or provided by the scientific method, does not have to be verified by the standards of the scientific method. Instead it is tested by the measuring tools themselves.

And I'm not sure what the dispute is supposed to be about, because religion has generally concerned itself with non scientific questions!!! The real contrast would be between the standards of philosophical argument and the religion method of appeal to authority in the form of tradition.


i will have to agree with sasaki here. though perhaps it is arguable that those tools you speak of are the result or an exponent of the scientific method in the sense that its verifies things ultimately by going outside (the mind and logic) and testing and retesting phenomena and then draw conclusions based on those results

[Shibumi]

Why stop at separating Science and State?

Separation of Sense and State - now that is the "in"-words of the religious wacksters!

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am still not getting the connection between science and religion here. Are people unaware that these are completely different kinds of concepts? I mean, they are both ideas... but that's like saying an apple is a baseball because they are both round.

Religion = a set of beliefs, usually organized into codes, doctrines, laws, and practices. These beliefs are based in faith, and not on falsifiable data, because a belief cannot be falsified. Even when presented with evidence to the contrary, one can still believe. Often times a religion will change, not because of falsification, but because of shifting societal values or cultural norms.

Science = a system of obtaining knowledge through hypothesis, testing, and falsification. That knowledge is then considered as useful, until it is replaced with something which has proven it false or at least questionable. Science as a system has become more formal, and the knowledge we have has changed, but it is just another name for how we learn things and test ideas. How we learn things and test ideas, is a wildly different concept from beliefs we hold which we refuse to test or cannot test.

So, one is like data sitting on your hard drive and the other is a system which adds data to your hard drive and updates obsolete data. Comparing the two without nothing the gigantic differences between them seems like intentional ignorance, and anti-intellectual propaganda.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

i will have to agree with sasaki here. though perhaps it is arguable that those tools you speak of are the result or an exponent of the scientific method in the sense that its verifies things ultimately by going outside (the mind and logic) and testing and retesting phenomena and then draw conclusions based on those results

Measurement is just another form of testing. Think about it: you measure for new curtains, then you measure again to be sure your measurements are right. It's science writ tiny.

So far as we can deduce medieval building were built essentially by deciding how long and wide you wanted it, and then everything else was described by interceting arcs using a giant pair of compases.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why stop at separating Science and State?

Separation of Sense and State - now that is the "in"-words of the religious wacksters!

I don't believe science and the state should be separate, this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of some peoples idea of secularism. Institutionalised separation of the church and state, by all means. But religion does have a role in the political sphere if people want it to.


You're gonna need to explicate the dozen or so logical leaps connecting those two statements for me.

Ajax

But who's logical leaps are they?


*postings*

So the reason religion and the state must remain separate, but science and the state must not, is that science is right?

I think similar logic was used by the theocrats of a few centuries ago to justify their rule...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And what was wrong with the theocrat's logic? Hell, their logic was fine.

[The Stranger]

I am still not getting the connection between science and religion here. Are people unaware that these are completely different kinds of concepts? I mean, they are both ideas... but that's like saying an apple is a baseball because they are both round.

Religion = a set of beliefs, usually organized into codes, doctrines, laws, and practices. These beliefs are based in faith, and not on falsifiable data, because a belief cannot be falsified. Even when presented with evidence to the contrary, one can still believe. Often times a religion will change, not because of falsification, but because of shifting societal values or cultural norms.

Science = a system of obtaining knowledge through hypothesis, testing, and falsification. That knowledge is then considered as useful, until it is replaced with something which has proven it false or at least questionable. Science as a system has become more formal, and the knowledge we have has changed, but it is just another name for how we learn things and test ideas. How we learn things and test ideas, is a wildly different concept from beliefs we hold which we refuse to test or cannot test.

So, one is like data sitting on your hard drive and the other is a system which adds data to your hard drive and updates obsolete data. Comparing the two without nothing the gigantic differences between them seems like intentional ignorance, and anti-intellectual propaganda.

-_- science is based on a set of beliefs as well. axiomas. and thus from the base out, they can be compared. to not even consider that point seems like intentional ignorance to me as well.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And what was wrong with the theocrat's logic? Hell, their logic was fine.

Well then, that is why you are being hypocritical.

[ajaxfetish]

But who's logical leaps are they?

Looked like they were yours, since you took my statement and ended up with a conclusion that seemingly has nothing to do with it.

Ajax

[The Stranger]

btw the idea that no arguments founded on logic and reason needed to be provided in theology is wrong. if you would walk into a christian university in 1250 and say God is infinite because i believe it. they would throw you out without hesitation. no empirical proof is provided, that is true, but no empirical matter is discussed.

that science as a practice and practiced religion are very different is obvious but thats also not what is the debate is about.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well then, that is why you are being hypocritical.

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

[Rhyfelwyr]

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

Your attitude is my whole point.

It's because although the theocrats said they were right, but you actually are right.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

Well that's just prejudiced.

Isn't it?

I could turn that on it's head very easily, but I won't.

Religion deals with quite different issues to science, and in a completely different way. For all that Theology and Divinity are actually higher up the scale in the traditional Academy, largely because they A) took longer to master and B) required a greater ability to make critical use of logic and to think abstractly, etc., etc.

"Science" is just a form of investigation, that is only applicable to a portion of human appreciation of reality I might add, it is not a substitute for philosophical or theological study.

So, why do we have scientific advisors on drugs to cover their physical aspect, but not philosophers or theologians to cover their spiritual or moral aspect? Politicians are not experts in either.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think similar logic was used by the theocrats of a few centuries ago to justify their rule...

And what was wrong with the theocrat's logic? Hell, their logic was fine.

Well then, that is why you are being hypocritical.

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

I could turn that on it's head very easily, but I won't.

Please do, please do turn it on its head. The inanity of complaining about the logic of "this is right and true, and therefore can be justification" is overwhelming. It's obvious that the issue is whether it really is right and true. But that's being skirted entirely in favor "well science thinks it has the answers and so does religion, what's the difference??????".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, why do we have scientific advisors on drugs to cover their physical aspect, but not philosophers or theologians to cover their spiritual or moral aspect? Politicians are not experts in either.

http://www.bioethics.gov/about/members.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please do, please do turn it on its head. The inanity of complaining about the logic of "this is right and true, and therefore can be justification" is overwhelming. It's obvious that the issue is whether it really is right and true. But that's being skirted entirely in favor "well science thinks it has the answers and so does religion, what's the difference??????".

You said science was right and religion wrong, but the issues where science impinges on religion are areas where science offers nothing more than "best guess", so you argument is without foundation. In any case, science is never "right" or "true" it simply postulates to fit the available evidence.

[Askthepizzaguy]

So the reason religion and the state must remain separate, but science and the state must not, is that science is right?

Hey, if you want to ignore the entire content of my post, feel free, but then do me a favor and don't respond to it.

I never said any such thing, I said that science and religion are wholly separate, very different kinds of phenomena.

They are not competing, opposite viewpoints, that you can complain one or the other is being favored. You can be a totally religious fundy and still respect what science says about the universe. You can cling to a belief, but also understand that the belief itself is an assumption that cannot be falsified and is thus a different kind of knowledge; opinion.

Science, on the other hand, is a name for a formal method of gaining knowledge. Knowledge and how we gain knowledge are not the same, they aren't in competition, they are wholly different concepts.

The entire premise of this thread is based on a huge misunderstanding of the key concepts involved. That is why I won't bother to respond to why there is a separation between religion and the state, until the fundamental assumptions underlying this argument are revised.


-_- science is based on a set of beliefs as well. axiomas. and thus from the base out, they can be compared. to not even consider that point seems like intentional ignorance to me as well.

Breathing is based on a set of beliefs as well, such as the belief that if you breathe you will remain alive, and that remaining alive is a good thing.

I propose we separate breathing from the State, since we're being intentionally absurd and ignoring everything I just said.

Any concept that involves the conscious mind also involves thinking and arguably, "belief". That does not mean everything the brain does is comparable with everything else it does, and that it's all the same. Opinion is learning is thought? No.

Thinking is different from knowing, knowing is different from learning. Some things are beliefs, and others, are methods. Beliefs and methods are not the same. An apple and a baseball are not the same.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hey, if you want to ignore the entire content of my post, feel free, but then do me a favor and don't respond to it.

I never said any such thing, I said that science and religion are wholly separate, very different kinds of phenomena.

They are not competing, opposite viewpoints, that you can complain one or the other is being favored. You can be a totally religious fundy and still respect what science says about the universe. You can cling to a belief, but also understand that the belief itself is an assumption that cannot be falsified and is thus a different kind of knowledge; opinion.

Science, on the other hand, is a name for a formal method of gaining knowledge. Knowledge and how we gain knowledge are not the same, they aren't in competition, they are wholly different concepts.

The entire premise of this thread is based on a huge misunderstanding of the key concepts involved. That is why I won't bother to respond to why there is a separation between religion and the state, until the fundamental assumptions underlying this argument are revised.

You're missing the whole point. There you go again, with religion its an 'opinion', with science its 'knowledge'.

[The Stranger]

Breathing is based on a set of beliefs as well, such as the belief that if you breathe you will remain alive, and that remaining alive is a good thing.

I propose we separate breathing from the State, since we're being intentionally absurd and ignoring everything I just said.

Any concept that involves the conscious mind also involves thinking and arguably, "belief". That does not mean everything the brain does is comparable with everything else it does, and that it's all the same. Opinion is learning is thought? No.

Thinking is different from knowing, knowing is different from learning. Some things are beliefs, and others, are methods. Beliefs and methods are not the same. An apple and a baseball are not the same.

what alot of bs. breathing isnt based on a set of beliefs. you try to hold your breath and see how long you will succeed in doing so. breathing is a neccesary bodily function. it is not something that you do and could not be doing. it is animal instinct.

you are being a tool at the moment and still your comparison falls short of the mark. besides that, i never advocated for science and state to be seperated. and definitly not based on whats on that website. science is supposed to have neutral values and therefor will less likely hamper politcal descision, thats for starter, for main i would have to give it some more thought

i never said that a belief and a method are the same. they are most definitly not. but at the base of the method is the belief in certain concepts that are the foundation of that method and THEREFORE cannot be proven by that method.

so try to read what people write plz. you are better than this. or to quote you


Hey, if you want to ignore the entire content of my post, feel free, but then do me a favor and don't respond to it.

if this is all you can come up with let sasaki handle it

[ajaxfetish]

You're missing the whole point. There you go again, with religion its an 'opinion', with science its 'knowledge'.

You're not reading very carefully. He defined 'opinion' as a subtype of knowledge, so it wouldn't make sense to contrast opinion and knowledge any more than it would to contrast cats and mammals. Also, his point was that science is not knowledge. It's methodology. In other words, with religion it's 'knowledge', with science it's not 'knowledge'.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're not reading very carefully. He defined 'opinion' as a subtype of knowledge, so it wouldn't make sense to contrast opinion and knowledge any more than it would to contrast cats and mammals. Also, his point was that science is not knowledge. It's methodology. In other words, with religion it's 'knowledge', with science it's not 'knowledge'.

Ajax

No he didn't, he only referenced "opinion" when talking about "beliefs", and we all know how he feels about beliefs from that farcicul "Faith vs Reason" debate he staged where he left in a huff after I pointed out that his fundamental premise was fundametally flawed.

[Meneldil]

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing.


Well, let me quote yourself here: "this is not an accurate statement"

Religious persecutions didn't wait for the cathars or for the crusades. Religious turnmoil and pogroms (either against jews or against christian sects) were defining features of the late roman empire. Jews have been disregarded and ostracized since christianism became a big deal, no matter where and when.
Charlemagne slaughtered pagans, just like Muhammad 150 years earlier. And by the end of the 10th century, the catholic church was already trying to enforce its dogma and to supress remnants from the pagan era.
As for wars, if it is caused by religious differences, then you can hardly rule out that religions promoted violence and intolerance.

The only reason why things got quieter for a while was that jews ceased to be a threat to the church, who ruled unrivaled over most of the western world but had neither the means nor the while to enforce an unified dogma. As soon as a rival (Islam) showed its ugly face, things went down the hill again.

As soon as religions became monotheistic - and thus claimed that someone had to be either "with us or against us" - only trouble could arise.

[The Stranger]

nothing you say is in conflict with what he has said. the last thing you say though has a point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You said science was right and religion wrong, but the issues where science impinges on religion are areas where science offers nothing more than "best guess", so you argument is without foundation. In any case, science is never "right" or "true" it simply postulates to fit the available evidence.

Postulates that fit the available evidence are often true :dizzy2:

In say, the terry schiavo case, pulling the plug is made legal by the government because of the scientific finding about the state of the brain. Religious people disagreed. Now, the point was that merely pointing at the disagreement is useless--it's an attempt to turn the debate into one about hypocrisy instead of one about whether in fact the brain is in such and such state. They both claim truth, but they do so in different ways, and that difference is the significant one.

If something is just a best guess, it's just a best guess...the leap of faith would be the part that's without foundation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, let me quote yourself here: "this is not an accurate statement"

Religious persecutions didn't wait for the cathars or for the crusades. Religious turnmoil and pogroms (either against jews or against christian sects) were defining features of the late roman empire. Jews have been disregarded and ostracized since christianism became a big deal, no matter where and when.

Well, for starters, Jews were ostracised throughout the Imperial period for being "atheists" as were Christians. You are correct that there was inter-religious violence in the Late-Empire, but the period was generally violent and suffering from breakdown of infastructure, religion may have been the lighting spark for some violent episodes but it was not the fuel.

[quote]Charlemagne slaughtered pagans, just like Muhammad 150 years earlier.

Would you like me to cover some of the things those Pagans were doing to Christian missionaries at the time. Did you know that the boast of the English in the Medieval period was that they were the only people who hadn't killed the monks sent to convert them.


And by the end of the 10th century, the catholic church was already trying to enforce its dogma and to supress remnants from the pagan era.
As for wars, if it is caused by religious differences, then you can hardly rule out that religions promoted violence and intolerance.

I've read some of the transcripts of trial from the period, and they generally consisted of the Bishop saying, "well look, really..." and then giving a sermon to the heretics. Not a set of thumb screws or a red-hot poker in sight.

Religions "promote" violence? No. Religious people can sometimes be intollerant and resort to violence? Yes

Your anti-religious revolution was far more bloody than our religiously motivated one, as evidenced by the fact that our society was recovered within a generation.


The only reason why things got quieter for a while was that jews ceased to be a threat to the church, who ruled unrivaled over most of the western world but had neither the means nor the while to enforce an unified dogma. As soon as a rival (Islam) showed its ugly face, things went down the hill again.

Oh rubbish. The whole "Christianity and Islam locked in a brutal struggle" is a myth perpetrated by historians from the Renaissance onwards, Edward Gibbon probably deserves a fair share of the blame, but not him alone. Try reading some of the contemporary opinions of Saladin.

Wiki is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin


As soon as religions became monotheistic - and thus claimed that someone had to be either "with us or against us" - only trouble could arise.

This is a fair point, but the criticism extends to atheism, as is seen in the "New Atheists" today, some of whom are less palitable than the Cathars.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Postulates that fit the available evidence are often true :dizzy2:

In say, the terry schiavo case, pulling the plug is made legal by the government because of the scientific finding about the state of the brain. Religious people disagreed. Now, the point was that merely pointing at the disagreement is useless--it's an attempt to turn the debate into one about hypocrisy instead of one about whether in fact the brain is in such and such state. They both claim truth, but they do so in different ways, and that difference is the significant one.

If something is just a best guess, it's just a best guess...the leap of faith would be the part that's without foundation.

...and often made by the Laity with regard to science, witness "Evolution is a fact".

[ajaxfetish]

No he didn't, he only referenced "opinion" when talking about "beliefs", and we all know how he feels about beliefs from that farcicul "Faith vs Reason" debate he staged where he left in a huff after I pointed out that his fundamental premise was fundametally flawed.


You can cling to a belief, but also understand that the belief itself is an assumption that cannot be falsified and is thus a different kind of knowledge; opinion.
Regardless of how AtPG feels about belief, here he explicitly classifies it as a subtype of knowledge.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Regardless of how AtPG feels about belief, here he explicitly classifies it as a subtype of knowledge.

Ajax

The problem though is that he has said different things before and since. You're a philologist, they must have taught you about quoting out of context, and how to identify key words, in this case "cling".

[ajaxfetish]

The problem though is that he has said different things before and since. You're a philologist, they must have taught you about quoting out of context, and how to identify key words, in this case "cling".

Oh, I understand he doesn't have much respect for belief. I just jumped in because Rhy's response to his post completely misrepresented AtPG's statements.

Ajax

[Beskar]

Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

[The Stranger]

Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

i agree. they are institutions with a monopoly on truth to keep a few in power and keep the rest ignorant and calm. to qualify for the title religion though, imo no worshipping of deities is a requirement.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

I agree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

Seen Dogma?

If "religion" means a power structure then I'd tend to agree - see my opinion of the Roman Catholic Church vs Roman Catholics or Roman Catholic beliefs. On the other hand if you mean "a group of people who come together to try and agree on shared beliefs" then I don't.

Religion is a natural phenomenon, it isn't "man made" any more than language is.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I guess he meant organised religion.

[gaelic cowboy]

I guess he meant organised religion.

As opposed to what unorganised religion

[Viking]

If blind faith in the scientific method is present, then yes, it is starting to look like religion. The scientific method cannot be proven; not for the present, the future nor the past. Nothing is certain in this world, at best it is very likely.


Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.

Imagine that you had replaced 'anarcho-capitalist' with an ethnicity. Pick your favourite.



Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

Then people wouldn't make sacrifises to gods in/of nature; it gains no leader. Fact is people like to control each other. That's one of the reasons that we have debates; we do not like to see that people have other opinions than those of our own.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Imagine that you had replaced 'anarcho-capitalist' with an ethnicity. Pick your favourite.

Why not just say he shouldn't have called them tards...that analogy doesn't work :balloon2:

[Viking]

Why not just say he shouldn't have called them tards...that analogy doesn't work :balloon2:



Oh yes it does. It is impossible to know everything about a group of people only because they share some traits in our perception of them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As opposed to what unorganised religion

I guess so. Or at least, top-down authoritarian style religion. There's nothing oppressive about people choosing to meet together to worship eg Brethren halls.

[gaelic cowboy]

I guess so. Or at least, top-down authoritarian style religion. There's nothing oppressive about people choosing to meet together to worship eg Brethren halls.

it's still organised yes/no.

I never understand that idea "Organised Religion" sure all religion is organised, if they did not they would have no core beliefs or canon to draw off.

I cant just go to a Brethern hall and start talking about the spaghetti monster if I want.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well obviously everything is organised to some extent, are football teams going to be oppressive next.

Plus evangelical Christianity is more about a relationship with Jesus. Some take if further than others, eg Quakers, who's entire faith is based on following the 'Holy Spirit'. OK they might meet up but it's not what you think of with the social/political power people mean when they talk about organised religion.

[HoreTore]

@Viking: are you seriously suggesting that ethnicity and political ideas are similar in some way....?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh yes it does. It is impossible to know everything about a group of people only because they share some traits in our perception of them.

Well, it's impossible to know everything about a group of people.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This thread has splintered off into the absurd.

[Beskar]

Well obviously everything is organised to some extent, are football teams going to be oppressive next.

Plus evangelical Christianity is more about a relationship with Jesus. Some take if further than others, eg Quakers, who's entire faith is based on following the 'Holy Spirit'. OK they might meet up but it's not what you think of with the social/political power people mean when they talk about organised religion.

Problem with evangelical Christianity is that it usually jumps in bed with fundamentalism.

The problem with fundamentalism is, it takes everything literally. Problem with this can be summed up with the "Fundamentalist Christian hatred of Harry Potter". Even when I was a Christian, I viewed such fundamentalism with disdain because it is sheer idiocy.

It is well within Common Knowledge that "Harry Potter" is a children's book hero who features in a series which isn't particularly that good (objectively) but can entertain people and no one takes it or him seriously. Now comes the Fundamentalist Christians who organize great book burnings, write works about how Harry Potter is in league with the devil, corrupting children's minds, amongst other things. [1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1735623.stm)[Google Search for thousands more]

So while organized Religion is a big factor in the suppression of people [See: Egyptians, Romans, Catholic Church, Voodoo Cults, etc], it also has a tendency to have extreme elements which can be summed up as 'Religdumb' (Religion+Idiocy).

[Reenk Roink]

Make faith falsifiable in the same way scientific theory is and then the two will be comparable.

I think the comparison doesn't work because it is of two different domains. Also, using falsifiability as a demarcation principle between science and non-science doesn't seem to work at all, not in the least because scientific theories can be said to be not falsifiable unless you stretch falsifiability so far in which case pseudoscience like creationism and astrology can be said to be falsifiable.


The real contrast would be between the standards of philosophical argument and the religion method of appeal to authority in the form of tradition.

Appeal to (certain religious) authority is a much sounder epistemic basis for knowledge than philosophical argument. Not even close. Good thing 'philosophy' isn't too much at a disadvantage seeing as there have been philosophical schools since the beginning which can be nicely characterized as appealing to authority.


In any case, science is never "right" or "true" it simply postulates to fit the available evidence.

Science doesn't work this way (this is an naive inductivist ideal held by many scientists and more non-scientists, but the position has frankly been smoked like a bad cigar). I think that the evidence is actually fit to the theory more. See Chalmers' What is this thing called Science first chapters (3rd edition, the 1st and 2nd editions are actually better in regards to the first chapters though the 3rd improved the last chapters significantly and made them more accessible) for a really good discussion.


Postulates that fit the available evidence are often true

There are an infinite (potentially infinite) number of postulates that can fit the available evidence. What percentage true range did you have in mind for 'often'?


to qualify for the title religion though, imo no worshipping of deities is a requirement.

In its most literal sense, I'd agree with this statement, but I know what you're trying to get at, and I have to respectfully disagree here. :bow: Science shouldn't be characterized as a religion. First of all, I feel it is a great insult to religion to do something like that.

I know what the point you're trying to make here is something like: 'science and religion both rest essentially on metaphysical axioms which can't be distinguished from each other' and I agree to a point (though I do think we can distinguish, just perhaps not rationally or in a value neutral way).

However, going beyond that, I'd add these major differences between the two. Religion really has to have ritual tied to it. I think ritual is a necessary condition, otherwise I would say something was 'philosophy' (for lack of a better term). And I really don't think something like research programs could be counted as ritual.

Furthermore, religion and science are even more distinguished today due to the secularization of science. Lindberg, Grant, and Hannam in their histories of science do an excellent job of showing how premodern science was very closely tied with religion and ideas of the supernatural. However, methodological naturalism now is the de facto methodology and actual metaphysical naturalism is assumed quite often. This to the extent that you will have people nowadays argue that science as we know it did not exist until 400-500 years ago, or even later than that (and if you accept their definition of science, they have a point).

Also, the domains of science and religion are different. I definitely don't agree with people who say they do not intersect as there is some overlap, but despite that, science (nowadays) is almost wholly exoteric in focus. Religion is both exoteric and esoteric, and the latter plays a big part in its identification.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think the comparison doesn't work because it is of two different domains. Also, using falsifiability as a demarcation principle between science and non-science doesn't seem to work at all, not in the least because scientific theories can be said to be not falsifiable unless you stretch falsifiability so far in which case pseudoscience like creationism and astrology can be said to be falsifiable.

I never really understood that as a criteria either. But it is easy to just say "must be falsifiable" I guess.



Appeal to (certain religious) authority is a much sounder epistemic basis for knowledge than philosophical argument. Not even close. Good thing 'philosophy' isn't too much at a disadvantage seeing as there have been philosophical schools since the beginning which can be nicely characterized as appealing to authority.


I don't understand what you mean. Using, say, moral intuitions as the foundation for a system of ethics and then arguing from there philosophically compared to saying that the people who did the same thing in ancient times got it right?



There are an infinite (potentially infinite) number of postulates that can fit the available evidence. What percentage true range did you have in mind for 'often'?

We were talking about actual postulates, i.e. things that have been postulated (he said something like, "science is never right, it just postulates..." and the point is it has been right about a great many things).


However, going beyond that, I'd add these major differences between the two. Religion really has to have ritual tied to it. I think ritual is a necessary condition, otherwise I would say something was 'philosophy' (for lack of a better term). And I really don't think something like research programs could be counted as ritual.

Furthermore, religion and science are even more distinguished today due to the secularization of science. Lindberg, Grant, and Hannam in their histories of science do an excellent job of showing how premodern science was very closely tied with religion and ideas of the supernatural. However, methodological naturalism now is the de facto methodology and actual metaphysical naturalism is assumed quite often. This to the extent that you will have people nowadays argue that science as we know it did not exist until 400-500 years ago, or even later than that (and if you accept their definition of science, they have a point).

Also, the domains of science and religion are different. I definitely don't agree with people who say they do not intersect as there is some overlap, but despite that, science (nowadays) is almost wholly exoteric in focus. Religion is both exoteric and esoteric, and the latter plays a big part in its identification.

Can you tell me something? I'm under the impression that it used to be a debate between "faith and reason", did this morph at some point into "science vs religion"? Why?

Or maybe it was "reason vs revelation".

[Reenk Roink]

I never really understood that as a criteria either. But it is easy to just say "must be falsifiable" I guess.

It's the purported demarcation principle (along with the related testability) which many scientists and lovers of science, and a few philosophers of science uphold. I never liked it but it seems to persuade judges for now. :shrug:


I don't understand what you mean. Using, say, moral intuitions as the foundation for a system of ethics and then arguing from there philosophically compared to saying that the people who did the same thing in ancient times got it right?

Right, the latter (in specific cases) is a lot better than the former.


We were talking about actual postulates, i.e. things that have been postulated (he said something like, "science is never right, it just postulates..." and the point is it has been right about a great many things).

Well, there have been a ton of 'postulates' in that case, though not a potential infinite. Also, science is probably not right in most (all?) of its postulates. For example, Geocentrism is probably wrong, so is heliocentrism. GR is probably wrong as well.

All of them are good (in the sense that they fit the evidence or rather the evidence fits them) models though, though you might favor one or another for whatever reason.


Can you tell me something? I'm under the impression that it used to be a debate between "faith and reason", did this morph at some point into "science vs religion"? Why?

Or maybe it was "reason vs revelation".

Science and religion seem to be synonyms for or at least very closely tied to reason and faith for a lot of people. :juggle2: Science (and reason) have had some good PR of late I guess.

[Viking]

@Viking: are you seriously suggesting that ethnicity and political ideas are similar in some way....?

What gives you that idea? The characterisation of entire groups is a method of induction. You see some traits that you do not like in some individuals belonging to a particular group, and conclude that these traits belongs to all members of the group - because it is convenient. Also known as bigotry.

Some forms of bigotry are less taboo than others, however. Therein lies the difference.


Well, it's impossible to know everything about a group of people.

Yes...? It is. The fact that they seemingly share some traits doesn't change anything. :inquisitive:

[The Stranger]

In its most literal sense, I'd agree with this statement, but I know what you're trying to get at, and I have to respectfully disagree here. :bow: Science shouldn't be characterized as a religion. First of all, I feel it is a great insult to religion to do something like that.

I know what the point you're trying to make here is something like: 'science and religion both rest essentially on metaphysical axioms which can't be distinguished from each other' and I agree to a point (though I do think we can distinguish, just perhaps not rationally or in a value neutral way).

However, going beyond that, I'd add these major differences between the two. Religion really has to have ritual tied to it. I think ritual is a necessary condition, otherwise I would say something was 'philosophy' (for lack of a better term). And I really don't think something like research programs could be counted as ritual.

Furthermore, religion and science are even more distinguished today due to the secularization of science. Lindberg, Grant, and Hannam in their histories of science do an excellent job of showing how premodern science was very closely tied with religion and ideas of the supernatural. However, methodological naturalism now is the de facto methodology and actual metaphysical naturalism is assumed quite often. This to the extent that you will have people nowadays argue that science as we know it did not exist until 400-500 years ago, or even later than that (and if you accept their definition of science, they have a point).

Also, the domains of science and religion are different. I definitely don't agree with people who say they do not intersect as there is some overlap, but despite that, science (nowadays) is almost wholly exoteric in focus. Religion is both exoteric and esoteric, and the latter plays a big part in its identification.


i actually meant it in literal sense. imo science isnt a religion, not even in the sense that i described it. practical science never will be such a religion because practical science is supposed to have neutral or no values. theoretical science does have the potential when what viking has said will happen.

as for your further points i think there should be a difference between the theoretical parts of both on which the practical parts actually rests but in day to day business does not really rely on (more so in the case of deities than in the case of science). practical science and practical religion (for the lack of a better word, deitism) are nothing alike indeed. and i would never compare them. but for the theoretical part only the first argument is needed, the one which you agree too. and perhaps the last argument would fit in there as well, im not yet sure about it, it is difficult. i share that intuition of domains, but i doubt you can maintain that position under philosophical scrutiny.

[The Stranger]

the debate reason vs faith is a tricky one anyway. where is to find the balance? no one would like a world of one absent the other, even it was possible. in a fully rational world that has been technologically developed as far as ours, the human species would die out rather quick. i guess in a world full of only faith, the same would happen. though i havent given that much thought.

not everything is and should be reasonable, i doubt that everything can be reasonable. the same goes for faith. i guess the seperation that is most popular now is a good one. in the public domain we would want reason to flourish and have the upperhand. but in day to day life what most people do is believe in a good outcome and make that step forward. because had you been fully rational you would end up afraid to step out of your door because you cannot know what is out there.

[HoreTore]

What gives you that idea? The characterisation of entire groups is a method of induction. You see some traits that you do not like in some individuals belonging to a particular group, and conclude that these traits belongs to all members of the group - because it is convenient. Also known as bigotry.

Some forms of bigotry are less taboo than others, however. Therein lies the difference.

No.

I am not refering to the persons themselves, I am referring to the prominent ideas that makes up anarcho-capitalism.

[Viking]

No.

I am not refering to the persons themselves, I am referring to the prominent ideas that makes up anarcho-capitalism.

This is what you said (bold face added by me): "Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.". You labeled the persons, not the ideas. That requires the assumption that if someone follows a stupid idea; or more precisely: a set of stupid ideas; then the persons themselves must be stupid; which does not automatically follow (as a matter of fact, there are...quite a few different ways to arrive at the same conclusion).

Furthermore, you have concluded that the ideas that make up the ideology are "stupid"; as you write above, which I for some funny reason suspect that you haven't spent time to "prove" logically, provided that such things are of such a nature that they can be "proven". After all, if you mean that a state - or rather the lack of it - should appear in a particular fashion only because the principles appeal to you; then what can be proven? What can be said to be "retarded"?

Anyway, regardless of what I write above, it is sort of an unnecessary statement to put forward - it is not going to help rational debate. :inquisitive:

[ajaxfetish]

I think the comparison doesn't work because it is of two different domains. Also, using falsifiability as a demarcation principle between science and non-science doesn't seem to work at all, not in the least because scientific theories can be said to be not falsifiable unless you stretch falsifiability so far in which case pseudoscience like creationism and astrology can be said to be falsifiable.

That was actually my point. It's ridiculous to say that because religion is separated from the state, science should be, too. They're completely different beasts, and the OP was trying to fit them into the same box.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

not everything is and should be reasonable, i doubt that everything can be reasonable. the same goes for faith. i guess the seperation that is most popular now is a good one. in the public domain we would want reason to flourish and have the upperhand. but in day to day life what most people do is believe in a good outcome and make that step forward. because had you been fully rational you would end up afraid to step out of your door because you cannot know what is out there.

Should only reason hold sway in the public sphere though? What about Human Rights, which were founded on the theistic principle that all man (later extended to women) are created equally? In a non-theistic and purely rational world Human Rights would never have emerged, so it seems reasonable to allow room for faith and belief in public life, religious or otherwise, given that all of us value the results those qualities have brought to public discourse in the past.

Personally, I don't like the seperation between "public" and "private", it implies I can be a good public servant but go home and beat my wife, or ruthlesslessly persecute the poor in government and still read my children a bed time story, asnd those two lives be seperate and non-reflective of each other.

[The Stranger]

Should only reason hold sway in the public sphere though? What about Human Rights, which were founded on the theistic principle that all man (later extended to women) are created equally? In a non-theistic and purely rational world Human Rights would never have emerged, so it seems reasonable to allow room for faith and belief in public life, religious or otherwise, given that all of us value the results those qualities have brought to public discourse in the past.

Personally, I don't like the seperation between "public" and "private", it implies I can be a good public servant but go home and beat my wife, or ruthlesslessly persecute the poor in government and still read my children a bed time story, asnd those two lives be seperate and non-reflective of each other.

i didnt say that it should be the only thing, i said i think most people would prefer the rational side to dominate in the public sphere, atleast that would be the most rational thing :P i dont believe you can ever fully seperate them and even if we could that it would be a good thing, amongst other reason because what you said.

[HoreTore]

This is what you said (bold face added by me): "Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.". You labeled the persons, not the ideas. That requires the assumption that if someone follows a stupid idea; or more precisely: a set of stupid ideas; then the persons themselves must be stupid; which does not automatically follow (as a matter of fact, there are...quite a few different ways to arrive at the same conclusion).

Bah. Have fun chipping splinters.


Furthermore, you have concluded that the ideas that make up the ideology are "stupid"; as you write above, which I for some funny reason suspect that you haven't spent time to "prove" logically, provided that such things are of such a nature that they can be "proven". After all, if you mean that a state - or rather the lack of it - should appear in a particular fashion only because the principles appeal to you; then what can be proven? What can be said to be "retarded"?

I have concluded that in my opinion, those ideas are X. Are we not allowed to form opinions on political ideas....? Can I not decide that I believe social democracy to be good, and liberal-conservatives(høyre) to be bad? And that anarcho-capitalism is idiotic? If you believe otherwise; fine, go ahead, see what I care. Are people not allowed to say that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a completely and utterly retarded idea....?


Anyway, regardless of what I write above, it is sort of an unnecessary statement to put forward - it is not going to help rational debate. :inquisitive:

Why on earth do you think I wanted to further debate? Heck, why would I even want debate anarcho-capitalism? As I said, the ideas are idiotic, why would I want to argue about stupidity?

[Viking]

Bah. Have fun chipping splinters.

I am most certain it is not; but in case it is, it's on your invitation (thanks).


I have concluded that in my opinion, those ideas are X. Are we not allowed to form opinions on political ideas....? Can I not decide that I believe social democracy to be good, and liberal-conservatives(høyre) to be bad? And that anarcho-capitalism is idiotic? If you believe otherwise; fine, go ahead, see what I care. Are people not allowed to say that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a completely and utterly retarded idea....?

I am jolly careful with labeling things as "retarded" as it is a very non-descriptive word. If the point of the USSR was to get humanity as close to utopia as possible, then history seems to show that they didn't really know what they were doing.

However; some important distinctions should be made: principle vs. whole. Sometimes principles are put above the whole. For instance when serial killers, serial rapists and "similar" criminals are given prison terms in stead of being executed (considering the cases where they stay in prison for the rest of their lives; the mentally "unstable" ones); even though execution would most probably benefit the rest of the society the most in sum (they could flee and kill/destroy again, they cost money and labour etc). In this case, the principle that the human life is sort of "sacred" is put above the whole, the society. Likewise, leaders of the USSR could say that they follow the right principles and thus have the moral high ground, even if their society wasn't the best to live in in terms of material values.

Yeah, you may have your own political opinions....but when using the word "retarded", then there is really being suggested that we are dealing with flaws of a logical nature; not a matter of taste. In which case you must be able to pull up arguments.


Why on earth do you think I wanted to further debate? Heck, why would I even want debate anarcho-capitalism? As I said, the ideas are idiotic, why would I want to argue about stupidity?

If you want to convince anyone about anything at all, then you will have to put forth arguments supporting your view. Shouting "you suck" is most likely not going to work (would be really nice if it did).

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you want to convince anyone about anything at all, then you will have to put forth arguments supporting your view. Shouting "you suck" is most likely not going to work (would be really nice if it did).

No you don't. Shouting "you suck" doesn't work, but shouting "unamerican", "socialist" or "communist" does.

[Beskar]

I say "Define God" and no one replies.

It is because I am right, innit?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I say "Define God" and no one replies.

It is because I am right, innit?

First Cause.

Happy?

[Strike For The South]

Shouting you suck is a perfectly acceptable answer

[Beskar]

First Cause.

Happy?

Nope. Because that isn't 'God' or even exclusive to a creator.

[The Stranger]

Nope. Because that isn't 'God' or even exclusive to a creator.

prove the truth of the scientific method.

[Beskar]

prove the truth of the scientific method.

Invalid question?

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Which has far more validity than any belief which doesn't.

[The Stranger]

Invalid question?

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. Which has far more validity than any belief which doesn't.

i am not talking about science. which is the practical form founded on the scientific method. Prove the method. It is not an invalid question.

Why does it have more validity? The method decides something is true when it is tested in this and this way and this result comes out. And everything that doesnt follow this method is not truthfull. But if you cant prove the method, your quote becomes dogmatic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope. Because that isn't 'God' or even exclusive to a creator.

Who says it isn't "God"?

This was my problem with HoreTore's OP, he opened with "X does not exist" without any attempt to define X.

He is ineffable, and defies definition, He says "I am".

Is that more to your liking? I can quote Saint Augustine if you would prefer.

[Beskar]

Who says it isn't "God"?

Hawkings has said so. So has Dawkins. So has many other people.

Even then, "God" (Christian God) is defined as having a conscious, so it isn't a process of nature. So if it was simply one of those fundamental constants which is responsible, or even there not even being a 'first cause', it doesn't make it 'God'.

Also, the Christian God is a personal god with a deep seated interest in humanity, so even then if there was a 'First Cause God', it doesn't even mean it is the Christian God.

[The Stranger]

nvrmind.

[Reenk Roink]

nvrmind.

You do learn quickly. :laugh4:

[Beskar]

Why does it have more validity? The method decides something is true when it is tested in this and this way and this result comes out. And everything that doesnt follow this method is not truthfull. But if you cant prove the method, your quote becomes dogmatic.

Because it is the best method and it is ever progressing with multiple methods in science based upon tenets which is to give us greater understanding. It is the best and nothing is near it to adequately consider as an alternative.

(The validity speaks for itself.)

[The Stranger]

Because it is the best method and it is ever progressing with multiple methods in science based upon tenets which is to give us greater understanding. It is the best and nothing is near it to adequately consider as an alternative.

(The validity speaks for itself.)

nothing ever speaks for itself. you give no proof, just rethoric. this is totally dogmatic.

[The Stranger]

You do learn quickly. :laugh4:

XD i had typed something. but i misread what i was reacting to.

[Beskar]

nothing ever speaks for itself. you give no proof, just rethoric. this is totally dogmatic.

I don't need to give proof. It is pretty easy just to type in Wikipedia "Scientific Method". It's not like referencing some obscure questionable information.

Here, I did it for you:


Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

It's not dogmatic in the slightest.

For definition of dogmatic:
- Stubbornly adhering to insufficiently proven beliefs; inflexible, rigid
- a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

[The Stranger]

I don't need to give proof. It is pretty easy just to type in Wikipedia "Scientific Method". It's not like referencing some obscure questionable information.

Here, I did it for you:



It's not dogmatic in the slightest.

For definition of dogmatic:
- Stubbornly adhering to insufficiently proven beliefs; inflexible, rigid
- a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

nothing that you find there provides evidence that this method is more valid then any other.

one thing i would like to point out though, is that this definition of dogmatic is a scientific definition since the proof that is being referred to is scientific proof. if you would bother to read thomas of aquino (which i wouldnt recommend because it bloody hard to read XD) or read about his work (which i think is more preferable) you would see that religion does offer proof to back their position. only the proof is not scientific and therefor no longer regarded as proof in this era.

i say dogmatic because you offer me nothing but your word that it is valid and that of wikipedia, and i have to believe you because it speaks for itself. for me that is insufficient.

wikipedia does a good job explaining me what the method is, and i will not dispute that, yet it does not offer any proof or argument of why this method is the most valid one or maybe even the only valid one. i dont think it intends to, but that doesnt make a difference in this case.

[Beskar]

i say dogmatic because you offer me nothing but your word that it is valid and that of wikipedia, and i have to believe you because it speaks for itself. for me that is insufficient.

It comes across as being angsty because some where in your past Science has some how "wronged" you, thus you go all rage about it, when the reality of Science it is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread as in examining and explaining this world with credible and independently viable ways. This has been repeatedly demonstrated time upon time that is it in the common sphere of knowledge, and it doesn't take much effort to find out for yourself.

The way it works with constant and careful scrutiny which can be independently replicated reliably and the host of internal measures makes it the ultimate tool so far created in handling these matters. Compared, lets say, what some one randomly wrote down in a book 2 thousand years ago, with nothing attributing to it.



wikipedia does a good job explaining me what the method is, and i will not dispute that, yet it does not offer any proof or argument of why this method is the most valid one or maybe even the only valid one. i dont think it intends to, but that doesnt make a difference in this case.

Because of the nature of the method itself is the best one. If you know of one which is better, post it right here so we can all see, then we can put both under careful scrutiny. So far we have a 2 thousand year old book being used as the source of all knowledge and being touted as the alternative, which is absurd itself.

[The Stranger]

Actually, it is because you are being angsty because some where in your past Science has some how "wronged" you, thus you go all rage about it, when the reality of Science it is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread as in examining and explaining this world with credible and independently viable ways. This has been repeatedly demonstrated time upon time that is it in the common sphere of knowledge, and it doesn't take much effort to find out for yourself.

actually you are wrong, i have never been wronged by science and i am not raging about it, even then, i dont see what that has to do with the discussion. all you offer me is it has been done in the past, it speaks for itself, science rules, it is true because wikipedia says so.

while all i ask of you is this, prove to me that the foundation of the scientific method is true and that the method itself is more valid than any other.

ps kinda low to try and get personal. dont fill in the blanks without having gathered any empirical data ;) your method doesnt allow it.

[Beskar]

while all i ask of you is this, prove to me that the foundation of the scientific method is true and that the method itself is more valid than any other.


Waste of my time and effort, if you really cared, you wouldn't be asking as you would already be looking it up yourself and seeing I am correct, and if not, you would actually say why not.

[The Stranger]

Waste of my time and effort, if you really cared, you wouldn't be asking as you would already be looking it up yourself and seeing I am correct, and if not, you would actually say why not.

if you had even bothered to read the thread you wouldve seen that i already said why not. im asking you a question and you dont give an answer. its as simple as that.

[Beskar]

if you had even bothered to read the thread you wouldve seen that i already said why not. im asking you a question and you dont give an answer. its as simple as that.

Nope, I answered it and you won't accept the answer, instead giving an unfair request to easily do a dissertation worth of work just to come to same exact conclusion.

[The Stranger]

all you have told me is something shady like, the nature of the method is the best one. but that doesnt prove anything. you just make a claim which you cant back up.

[Beskar]

all you have told me is something shady like, the nature of the method is the best one. but that doesnt prove anything. you just make a claim which you cant back up.

That's incorrect, it is easy to back-up and you know exactly where to look but you refuse to. Science methodology is the best one, given the overwhelming evidence and lack of any credible alternatives.

[The Stranger]

given the overwhelming evidence? the overwhelming evidence is all given within the scientic box, it is all scientific evidence. the christians in 1400 ad thought they had overwhelming evidence for the proof of god.

you say the nature of the scientific matter is the best one. but that is something which cant be proven. it cant be proven scientifically because the foundation of the method cant be scientifically proven, you will accept in your premise what you try to prove. i claim it cant be proven otherwise because at core level there is always something which has to be accepted without it being possible to prove.

the lack of any credible and consistent (if that should be a criteria) alternatives is your best argument. but how objective is this argument? you cant define credible by scientific terms. so you would have to come up with a different criterions. if credible means believable, than the argument fails because there are many alternatives widely believed.