A fine choice for the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology [Archive]

Sasaki Kojiro

10-13-2012, 00:04

The only issues with math and science textbooks are the over simplified way that concepts are presented and the badly constructed way questions are written. The actual content is not garbage unless you start injecting evidence-lacking religious doctrine into it.

I doubt there's many controversial math textbooks, yes. I was talking about history textbooks.

But some textbooks that teach evolution do teach it badly. When science moves away from the basics it runs into the same problems regular textbooks have, of which christian influence is only one small part. Scientists often bring philosophy into it.

Creationism in school books is mostly harmless because in general it's an insignificant area, comparable to astronomy. The only use of it is to keep bad theories out. But getting some basic facts right that fundamentalists get wrong doesn't mean you don't have a bad theory. Do you know how many people use and have used evolutionary theory to argue for despicable things?

I would prefer history classes to be taught without a textbook, like the world history class I am taking right now in uni. However, you do the best with what you have. You can't simply let it all go to hell because having a textbook is flawed in the first place, either move away from a standard textbook or try your best to minimize the problems. And that means no fundamentalists.

In a schoolroom environment (grade&high school) they do one of two things. A list of facts and information that people forget, because they have context, or don't know what to do with, because they have no context. Or they teach a simplified story along with the facts and info, and people end up believing they have solid reason to believe in that simplified story. This is many times worse than not teaching it at all.

It would be best if they merely tried to get students interested (for the young ones) and had them read primary sources, chronicles, journals, literature from the time etc (for high school). A heavy dose of that can make it a decent class with even the worst teacher. But it's one of the least teachable subjects. We usually don't have philosophy classes in high school, maybe we shouldn't have history classes either. Usually it's just someone who isn't truly qualified, teaching a simplified version of history that tells a message they believe in. In many countries this is a rabidly nationalist message.

The undeserved promotion of science is worse than the undeserved restriction of X from fundies? I would rather have a world where there is too much of something than not enough.

Would you rather have too much fundamentalism than not enough?

Fundamentalists are a known quantity. They probably aren't going to change much. We have experience with the role of religion in political life.

Overvaluing science is as bad as promoting the idea that you should look for answers in religious doctrine. It's a way to not think. The fact that the government funds as much psychology as it does, and that people treat it as credulously as they do, is many times worse than having some congressman who is a creationist. They are directly comparable. If you believe that there is a scientific method for getting at important human truths then you think you can just read the results and know the truths. It's just like listening to a preacher or looking something up in the bible. The people who think otherwise believe, on some level, in a pro-science ideology and have a bias.

Montmorency

10-13-2012, 00:32

Scientists often bring philosophy into it.

That's the idea.

Do you know how many people use and have used evolutionary theory to argue for despicable things?

AFAIK, no one. Many have been influenced by it, though.

Note: there isn't really such a thing as "simplified" history.

Or they teach a simplified story along with the facts and info, and people end up believing they have solid reason to believe in that simplified story. This is many times worse than not teaching it at all.

It would be best if they merely tried to get students interested (for the young ones) and had them read primary sources, chronicles, journals, literature from the time etc (for high school). A heavy dose of that can make it a decent class with even the worst teacher.

So the students would learn this "simplified" history independently? Are you sure you'd like that? What's the use, besides to sideline the educational establishment?

Overvaluing science is as bad as promoting the idea that you should look for answers in religious doctrine. It's a way to not think. The fact that the government funds as much psychology as it does, and that people treat it as credulously as they do, is many times worse than having some congressman who is a creationist. They are directly comparable. If you believe that there is a scientific method for getting at important human truths then you think you can just read the results and know the truths. It's just like listening to a preacher or looking something up in the bible. The people who think otherwise believe, on some level, in a pro-science ideology and have a bias.

Please list the harms you believe come from both. I'd be interested in hearing that.

The people who think otherwise believe, on some level, in a pro-science ideology and have a bias.

Bias against them all makes you no less credulous than others.

rvg

10-13-2012, 00:41

What the hell is happening, Americans?

It's Georgia. That's one mitigating circumstance. If a congressman from say, New Hampshire publicly said something like that, he's probably lose the re-election. People in the South have a much higher tolerance for nonsense compared to us yankees.

a completely inoffensive name

10-13-2012, 00:44

But some textbooks that teach evolution do teach it badly.
How so?

Creationism in school books is mostly harmless because in general it's an insignificant area, comparable to astronomy. The only use of it is to keep bad theories out. But getting some basic facts right that fundamentalists get wrong doesn't mean you don't have a bad theory. Do you know how many people use and have used evolutionary theory to argue for despicable things?
I know of instances it was used to justify terrible things, but the issue is not with the theory but with the people who wield it. You can't claim modern evolutionary theory is bad because people use it for justifying bad conclusions. We would all condemn organized religion if that was the case. But we shouldn't. Hence, why I complain about the fundamentalists as opposed to Christianity.

In a schoolroom environment (grade&high school) they do one of two things. A list of facts and information that people forget, because they have context, or don't know what to do with, because they have no context. Or they teach a simplified story along with the facts and info, and people end up believing they have solid reason to believe in that simplified story. This is many times worse than not teaching it at all.
Interesting. This might cause you distress, but my uni world history class has us reading a book called "Maps of Time" by David Christian. The purpose of the book is to combine the various sciences and social sciences together to make a coherent "Big History" of humanity, starting from the origin of the universe. A modern, scientific creation-myth story he semi-jokingly calls it in the intro.

It would be best if they merely tried to get students interested (for the young ones) and had them read primary sources, chronicles, journals, literature from the time etc (for high school). A heavy dose of that can make it a decent class with even the worst teacher. But it's one of the least teachable subjects. We usually don't have philosophy classes in high school, maybe we shouldn't have history classes either. Usually it's just someone who isn't truly qualified, teaching a simplified version of history that tells a message they believe in. In many countries this is a rabidly nationalist message.
Interesting idea. One I would entertain, but there are concerns I have. I guess that topic requires it's own thread.

Would you rather have too much fundamentalism than not enough?

Fundamentalists are a known quantity. They probably aren't going to change much. We have experience with the role of religion in political life.

Overvaluing science is as bad as promoting the idea that you should look for answers in religious doctrine. It's a way to not think. The fact that the government funds as much psychology as it does, and that people treat it as credulously as they do, is many times worse than having some congressman who is a creationist. They are directly comparable. If you believe that there is a scientific method for getting at important human truths then you think you can just read the results and know the truths. It's just like listening to a preacher or looking something up in the bible. The people who think otherwise believe, on some level, in a pro-science ideology and have a bias.

On some level, people don't want to think. OR at least, they do the bare minimum in order to survive. Whether it is at uni, or in their daily lives. What I want to know is why you are so concerned about the overzealous science supporters who demand money for ventures that at least have the benefit of giving us cool new stuff to play with and yet write off the fundamentalists who actively attempt at dictating people's lives and the information they do/do not get?

Kralizec

10-13-2012, 00:53

Your views seem pretty strange to me. I don't mean that in a bad way; I'm genuinely puzzled.

Science is supposed to reflect our knowledge of the universe and everything in it, including ourselves. Science researchers are supposed to advance our knowledge. An "intelligent design" supporter would argue that evolution is a bad theory, or at least a questionable one. He would not question the concept of "science" as such, just the prevailing view on this particular subject.

The odd part is that while layman supporters of the evolution theory would characterise creationists/ID supporters as anti-science as name calling, you seem to accept the label as a legitimate position.

But I think the worst are the credulous ones who are overly pro-science.

That a person accepts the evolution theory tells us nothing about his intelligence. Undoubtedly there are many politicians, and people in general, who accept the evolution theory without trying to understand it, or the evidence in favour of it. How are they worse than the credulous ones who started taking the bible literally at some point and never questioned it since?

Sasaki Kojiro

10-13-2012, 03:28

That's the idea.

They suck at it. "Oh, when you look at the universe, you see how small and insignificant you are", etc.

AFAIK, no one. Many have been influenced by it, though.

Note: there isn't really such a thing as "simplified" history.

strange semantics

So the students would learn this "simplified" history independently? Are you sure you'd like that? What's the use, besides to sideline the educational establishment?

What makes you think they would? The fewer people using a dumb historical theory as a crutch the better.

Please list the harms you believe come from both. I'd be interested in hearing that.

No. I've already spilled an inappropriate amount of ink. I could have left it at the Dawkin's tweet.

Bias against them all makes you no less credulous than others.

I'm not biased against them, I care more because it's the mainstream among powerful people. If creationism was then I would care more about it.

I know of instances it was used to justify terrible things, but the issue is not with the theory but with the people who wield it. You can't claim modern evolutionary theory is bad because people use it for justifying bad conclusions. We would all condemn organized religion if that was the case. But we shouldn't. Hence, why I complain about the fundamentalists as opposed to Christianity.

If people are wielding things, it matters what they are wielding. In our culture at this time religion is not a very dangerous thing to wield. Scientism is. Notice I made the same kind of distinction you are making between fundamentalists and christians, except with science...I specifically said "credulous/utopian".

Interesting. This might cause you distress, but my uni world history class has us reading a book called "Maps of Time" by David Christian. The purpose of the book is to combine the various sciences and social sciences together to make a coherent "Big History" of humanity, starting from the origin of the universe. A modern, scientific creation-myth story he semi-jokingly calls it in the intro.

You're being ripped off. Did the professor assign his own book or something?

On some level, people don't want to think. OR at least, they do the bare minimum in order to survive. Whether it is at uni, or in their daily lives. What I want to know is why you are so concerned about the overzealous science supporters who demand money for ventures that at least have the benefit of giving us cool new stuff to play with and yet write off the fundamentalists who actively attempt at dictating people's lives and the information they do/do not get?

I don't care about the money or the new stuff. Look below:

Science is supposed to reflect our knowledge of the universe and everything in it, including ourselves. Science researchers are supposed to advance our knowledge. An "intelligent design" supporter would argue that evolution is a bad theory, or at least a questionable one. He would not question the concept of "science" as such, just the prevailing view on this particular subject.

The odd part is that while layman supporters of the evolution theory would characterise creationists/ID supporters as anti-science as name calling, you seem to accept the label as a legitimate position.

Science is for studying the physical and natural world. The humanities are the study of people. In science its often very difficult to find something out, but when you find it out you can show it objectively. In the humanities many things are very easy to see, but it's often hard to convince anyone, let alone prove anything. So, if you want to convince someone of something, what do you do? You can argue, write history, use art or literature or storytelling, etc, religion usually uses all of those. There's nothing wrong with that as a method, it just ossifies over time and people rely on doctrine. Priests are recognized as people who have special insight through some trait of theirs or through intensive study, so people take their word for it. Today science takes that role for many people.

Science is an inappropriate tool for studying the humanities, but it has so much prestige in our time because of the technology it has created, and because people imagine that it overthrew religion (not true). So you have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

And the counterreaction in our own century has been bad as well--behaviorism, blank slate theory. You think we are past that and that modern psychology (of the kind that tries to answer humanities questions) is better?

ICantSpellDawg

10-13-2012, 04:52

Broun is insane. Young earthers are insane. People who believe that science comes from the devil to trick us are insane. I am seriously concerned with the ability of people who think this way to hold office. I hope they eject this man out of office as soon as possible.

I'm not saying that this physician/national level politician/Christian is a stupid man, I'm concerned about his mental health and I hope he gets better soon.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

Men like this are the seeds of an American Taliban. Akin spouted 1 verifiably false assertion that caused people to cringe. This guy has separated himself from basic reality. I can defend a gap of knowledge on a specific topic, we all have them - but I can't defend detachment from reality or this man sitting on the science and technology committee.

Here is the full madness (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9BREymSq_A&feature=related)

BTW. I am a "Creationist" as it is loosely understood. I believe that we exist, have not always existed and were therefore created in some way. I've always like the watchmaker deistic understanding of creation. The one that uses revealed and discovered scientific theories to explain the mechanism of that creation. I understand that Genesis is a revealed truth, but that; as it is a book with a few pages containing an image of creation that doesn't mean that we were created in a book. It is a nearly infinite process, condensed into a book, it is clearly an abbreviated understanding of the larger idea. As I've said before, creationism is not a scientific concept and does not belong in the science classroom. Science follows a verification schema and anything that fails that test should not be taught as science. It could have a place in an ethics class, or in literature, or in philosophy. I believe that the Bible has a place in everyones life, but the entire idea of classifying knowledge into different categories precludes it from being part of scientific curriculum.

Either way, I am not surprised that some people "think" in this way, unfortunately. Southern Baptists have been an excellent source of votes for my causes and many of them have been very kind to me, but at some point the mongoose that you enlist to kill the snakes become a more potent and intractable pest. Boot the guy from office and put almost anyone else in there.

Ironside

10-13-2012, 10:17

Science is for studying the physical and natural world. The humanities are the study of people. In science its often very difficult to find something out, but when you find it out you can show it objectively. In the humanities many things are very easy to see, but it's often hard to convince anyone, let alone prove anything. So, if you want to convince someone of something, what do you do? You can argue, write history, use art or literature or storytelling, etc, religion usually uses all of those. There's nothing wrong with that as a method, it just ossifies over time and people rely on doctrine. Priests are recognized as people who have special insight through some trait of theirs or through intensive study, so people take their word for it. Today science takes that role for many people.

Science is an inappropriate tool for studying the humanities, but it has so much prestige in our time because of the technology it has created, and because people imagine that it overthrew religion (not true). So you have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

And the counterreaction in our own century has been bad as well--behaviorism, blank slate theory. You think we are past that and that modern psychology (of the kind that tries to answer humanities questions) is better?

And the alternative method is?...
If a flawed method still gives benficial results (and it does, otherwise you wouldn't even be able to detect the previous mistakes), then a proper alternative needs to be discovered before abandoning the old method.
Besides, the real problem is keeping proper critical thinking, which are more or less an impossible goal, but one important goal to strive for.

And that's what is horribly lacking when it comes to creationists. Their answer is already written in stone, no matter contradicting information and logical consequences such assumptions has with already established facts.

HoreTore

10-13-2012, 10:18

The problem with religion interfering is not what kind of theories they have, nor how whacky those theories are. The problem arises when they try to displace scientific theories with their own theories, which they believe are just as plausible.

For example, I have no problem with people who believe that (a) god(s) created humanity. Teach it in schools too, I don't care all that much(just don't ask me to do it). The problem arises if they want to take out evolution, for example. That's completely unacceptable. That's child abuse.

Montmorency

10-13-2012, 10:43

They suck at it. "Oh, when you look at the universe, you see how small and insignificant you are", etc.

That's not the idea.

strange semantics

:inquisitive:

What makes you think they would? The fewer people using a dumb historical theory as a crutch the better.

You're asking pre-adolescents to teach themselves historical analysis. Without any concept...

As for "dumb theory", that's personal preference on the teacher's part.

No. I've already spilled an inappropriate amount of ink. I could have left it at the Dawkin's tweet.

"Scientism" can only cause damage through a misapprehension of the capacities of science in terms of ways and means.

That, or technological apotheosis in the hands of the state.

I'm not biased against them

You mean you aren't opposed to them? But you've stated that you are, in so many words.

If people are wielding things, it matters what they are wielding. In our culture at this time religion is not a very dangerous thing to wield. Scientism is. Notice I made the same kind of distinction you are making between fundamentalists and christians, except with science...I specifically said "credulous/utopian".

I get the feeling that you see "scientism" as so dangerous that religious fundamentalism is necessary today to counteract it. That's silly.

Science is for studying the physical and natural world. The humanities are the study of people.

What if through science the people are changed? Would the humanities in their current form not become irrelevant?

Fragony

10-13-2012, 14:53

Do you know who also got a feeling, Adolf Hitler

Sasaki Kojiro

10-13-2012, 18:35

And the alternative method is?...
If a flawed method still gives benficial results (and it does, otherwise you wouldn't even be able to detect the previous mistakes), then a proper alternative needs to be discovered before abandoning the old method.

What do you mean? You don't have a conception of an alternative method of learning about humanity than scientific psychology studies?

You can't even do scientific psychology studies without having a different base.

Besides, the real problem is keeping proper critical thinking, which are more or less an impossible goal, but one important goal to strive for.

And that's what is horribly lacking when it comes to creationists. Their answer is already written in stone, no matter contradicting information and logical consequences such assumptions has with already established facts.

Baloney. Look at the Dawkin's tweet I posted. He's a conspiracy theorist. There are dozens of different ways in which people can not care about critical thinking, can keep some illogical belief in opposition to established facts. That's ordinary for any ideologue or political partisan.

The main reason people single out creationism is because it is an easy "win" for their own beliefs. People who oppose the religious worldview in many different ways cherry pick the most blatantly, provably wrong beliefs and let them stand in for the whole. It is in itself ducking the demands of critical thinking.

The idea that creationists are some special brand of stupid is little better than propaganda.

You're asking pre-adolescents to teach themselves historical analysis. Without any concept...

No I'm not.

We don't usually have philosophy classes for young kids where we expect them to debate morality and the meaning of life, etc. The only reason we have history classes that try to teach a message or a narrative is because we have severe misconceptions about history.

"Scientism" can only cause damage through a misapprehension of the capacities of science in terms of ways and means.

That, or technological apotheosis in the hands of the state.

Yes.

You mean you aren't opposed to them? But you've stated that you are, in so many words.

I am so that's not what I meant.

I get the feeling that you see "scientism" as so dangerous that religious fundamentalism is necessary today to counteract it. That's silly.

No, it's not needed to counteract it. But the fact that it does counteract it to some extent softens its badness.

I would compare this thread on the whole to a more conservative forum heaping derision on a democratic politician who was believed in veganism and on the agricultural committee or something. It's less of a serious consideration of the intellectual quality of the person than an easy target for scorn.

What if through science the people are changed? Would the humanities in their current form not become irrelevant?

We're being turned into robots or something?

Montmorency

10-14-2012, 07:18

We don't usually have philosophy classes for young kids where we expect them to debate morality and the meaning of life, etc. The only reason we have history classes that try to teach a message or a narrative is because we have severe misconceptions about history.

Such as? Take the narrative as incidental; do you believe children shouldn't at least be taught some basic chronology? To say that they should learn independently is no more than an endorsement of homeschooling -are the narratives emanating from that preferable?

We're being turned into robots or something?

Perhaps effectively. You can be sure that it is a solid goal for certain Western states - unless they are more incompetent than we imagine - and the means to achieve it are becoming available.

You don't have a conception of an alternative method of learning about humanity than scientific psychology studies?

Neuroscience.

The idea that creationists are some special brand of stupid is little better than propaganda.

People who oppose the religious worldview in many different ways cherry pick the most blatantly, provably wrong beliefs and let them stand in for the whole. It is in itself ducking the demands of critical thinking.

Note that creationism is a central belief among those who hold it, generally, and so colors all other beliefs.

You haven't really demonstrated convincingly why creationism should be considered no worse than, say, the more venial illogic of heightened visceral response while walking past a - any - black man on a lonely street.

Come to think of it, you haven't convincingly demonstrated that certain narratives permeate the public school system as a whole - is 'unhealthy' reverence for science really more common than jingoism and religious fervor? - or that they are actually harmful. With either of the examples in the previous line, unthinking obedience and credulity is a given. From there, it's merely a matter of personal preference...

An analogy: The misuse of military force can be harmful. Wrapping oneself in one's country's flag and appealing to respect for those serving in the armed forces in order to bolster one's cause is not misuse of military force. Looking to religious fervor as a counterbalance to respect for science would, on the other hand, serve to engender the latter case...

Fragony

10-14-2012, 08:07

Do you know who also disliked a personal preference, gawd it't everywhere all around us, just waiting

Kralizec

10-14-2012, 09:33

Science is for studying the physical and natural world. The humanities are the study of people. In science its often very difficult to find something out, but when you find it out you can show it objectively.

I see absolutely no reason to place the origin of man outside the purview of science. If "the humanities" try to monopolise that question they're wrong, and if they try to replace scientific theory with a pre-conceived notion of a divine creator ripped straight out of the bible (sometimes disguised as "intelligent design") that the'yre even wronger.

Priests are recognized as people who have special insight through some trait of theirs or through intensive study, so people take their word for it. Today science takes that role for many people.

The words and views of priests have no value beyond their job description; i.e. catering for the supposed souls of their flock.

They're not equivalent roles. Science is not a religion surrogate, and religion should not be treated as an equal - not because I dislike religion, but because they're apples and oranges. Creationism has no place in science classes or science textbooks. If you want to have a seperate course for religious studies where kids will learn that according to a 2,000 year old book people were conjured up out of thin air, fine. But be honest and make it clear that creationism isn't science instead of trying to pass it as something that it's not.

Science is an inappropriate tool for studying the humanities, but it has so much prestige in our time because of the technology it has created, and because people imagine that it overthrew religion (not true). So you have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

And the counterreaction in our own century has been bad as well--behaviorism, blank slate theory. You think we are past that and that modern psychology (of the kind that tries to answer humanities questions) is better?

Science has prestige because it has given us meaningful progress. It's given me medicine, electricity, the internet and other stuff. Organised religion has never given me anything and it means nothing to me. I'll tolerate the religionists as long as they keep to themselves and keep themselves occupied with their "spiritual wellbeing" or their place in the hypothetical afterlife, neither wich bothers me. Biology is a science which holds evolution as the prevailing theory, and if the creationists don't approve then they can quite frankly go to hell.

Creationism in school books is mostly harmless because in general it's an insignificant area, comparable to astronomy.

Astronomy is a legitimate science. Astrology would be a better comparison because that's nonsense, too.

If you do actually mean astronomy and mean that teaching creationist nonsense is harmless because it would still be less than 1% of the curriculum, then I still disagree. Saying that a literary interpretation of the bible is an equally valid way of explaing the origin of man would be comproming the integrity of science textbooks.

Besides the argument cuts both ways - creationists shouldn't whine about evolution being tought in schools because it's only a small part of the curriculum.

Ironside

10-14-2012, 09:42

What do you mean? You don't have a conception of an alternative method of learning about humanity than scientific psychology studies?

You can't even do scientific psychology studies without having a different base.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The psychology books have more than scientific psychology studies, even if it's part of the data gathering. Science is to gather as much data as possible, verify or discard it and draw conclusions. There's scientific fields where there's only interpretations of the limited data (where most is wrong), say like history.
The place where science is really useful is where it breaks preconceptions. This doesn't make sense at first or even second glance, but it's how the world works.

Is it scientific to tell stories? Yes, if it's verified that it does the purpose that you intent it'll do.

Baloney. Look at the Dawkin's tweet I posted. He's a conspiracy theorist. There are dozens of different ways in which people can not care about critical thinking, can keep some illogical belief in opposition to established facts. That's ordinary for any ideologue or political partisan.

And that was my point. Yet learning about critical thinking is still a vast improvement over the old "the authority is 100% correct, always". Which are what the creationists are doing.

The main reason people single out creationism is because it is an easy "win" for their own beliefs. People who oppose the religious worldview in many different ways cherry pick the most blatantly, provably wrong beliefs and let them stand in for the whole. It is in itself ducking the demands of critical thinking.

The idea that creationists are some special brand of stupid is little better than propaganda.

Special brand of stupid? Perhaps not. Dangerous brand of stupid, due to moderatly successful attempts of spreading their policy and viewpoint on science? Now we're getting somewhere.

Does to school sometimes teach things wrong? Yes. It has to teach something, so it has to trust the current authorities on the subject. They can be wrong. The thing with critical thinking is that you can with new information easily accept that some of that was indeed wrong.

And about the cherry picking. Why exactly should you allow the most blatantly, provably wrong beliefs to stand uncontested? Compare it to a scientific theory, allowing it to stand critically flawed is a mockery, so due to how things work (no human got unlimited time to throughly analyse everything to find the small hidden gems that might hide in a huge pile), the proposer needs to revise his work until it's decent. If it's without any obvious flaws, it's certainly worth further consideration.

To use an example from another thread. If the soul enters at conception, then God is having a very large amount of souls of unborn children (possibly a majority of the total souls). Since God created man, he deliberatly set up this system. So it needs to have a purpose, in particular since souls are important. This pupose needs also to be coherant with previous information about God, to be functional theory. I sincerly doubt there is one, but if there's one, I'll be very interested to read it though.

Does this prove or say anything about God or souls? No, and even less about Jesus, but it's not convincing and it's not my duty to do your job of giving a credible theory, I'm just there to judge your conclusions.

Fragony

10-14-2012, 09:51

'And that was my point. Yet learning about critical thinking is still a vast improvement over the old "the authority is 100% correct, always". Which are what the creationists are doing.'

^- that, take a pike sideways ad rectum if you don't agree

Ronin

10-14-2012, 21:33

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_QDA6Y6cp8

says it all really.

Papewaio

10-14-2012, 22:56

The prestige of science and the false authority that results from it is a bigger problem than fundamentalists denying things so they feel happier in their faith.

Science is about questions. It is curiosity, it is marveling and wondering about the world around us. It is about figuring it how things work.

The most important thing my Physics professors instilled in us students was to question Why? That included authority figures, which annoyed to no end the lecturers in the humanities subjects we had to take.

Prestige of science... I think most of it for most mortals lies in its applications and that is engineering and pharmacy to name a few of the technologists.

It is not an act of false authority to make a bridge that stands.

gaelic cowboy

10-15-2012, 02:49

what worries me more is that this man is a doctor and thinks evolution is a lie.

this would be the same evolution that you need to understand in order to end up with the medical advances we have today.

Rhyfelwyr

10-15-2012, 13:08

I wonder how many senators say they accept the theory of evolution, and yet don't know the first thing about it.

gaelic cowboy

10-15-2012, 13:14

I wonder how many senators say they accept the theory of evolution, and yet don't know the first thing about it.

well that would be just like "religious" senators who don't seem to be really all that christian when you examine it.

As I said already I worry more about how he can claim to be a doctor and pull this craic with a straight face.

CBR

10-15-2012, 14:48

I wonder how many senators say they accept the theory of evolution, and yet don't know the first thing about it.
Since evolution is mainstream science, and has been for a very long time, why should people have to know much about it to accept it?

How many senators say they accept that Earth orbits the Sun, and yet don't know much about gravity and planetary orbits?

Rhyfelwyr

10-15-2012, 14:52

Since evolution is mainstream science, and has been for a very long time, why should people have to know much about it to accept it?

How many senators say they accept that Earth orbits the Sun, and yet don't know much about gravity and planetary orbits?

Exactly. Most of us are ignorant, Ken Ham knows more about the theory of evolution than Joe Blogg, who is Joe to call him stupid?

CBR

10-15-2012, 15:58

Ken Ham and his creationism goes against mainstream science. Joe does not need to do much research before Joe can find Ken Ham being utterly debunked.

Rhyfelwyr

10-15-2012, 16:48

I don't agree with Ken Ham, I've just saying he could run rings round the average person in an evolution debate.

The average person can't even point out France on a map.

HoreTore

10-15-2012, 21:27

I don't agree with Ken Ham, I've just saying he could run rings round the average person in an evolution debate.

The average person can't even point out France on a map.

Eh, what?

What the creationists have demonstrated(and how on earth did you conclude that this guy didn't just accept creationism because his pastor or whatever told him so?), is that none of them knows anything whatsoever about evolution.

Their "facts" are just a bunch of misconceptions, outright lies and ignorance. If you believe creationism, then you have by default demonstrated that you have zero knowledge of evolution.

Creationists often win debates with sane people(evolutionists) though. Not because their arguments are good, but because they tell lies that completely stuns a normal person, which makes the already pro-creationist audience think dem dar proffessurs dunt know anything. That, plus dishonest empty rethoric.

CBR

10-16-2012, 00:16

I don't agree with Ken Ham, I've just saying he could run rings round the average person in an evolution debate.
Yes, true. Which is why having politicians spreading pseudoscience is a bad thing; some voters trusts their politicians so much that they actually believe in the nonsense!

Let me end by quoting Senator James Inhofe talking about his book on the global warming hoax (yada yada):

Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

...

Ronin

10-16-2012, 17:29

I don't agree with Ken Ham, I've just saying he could run rings round the average person in an evolution debate.

Debate abilities (which include underhanded tactics of blocking logic argument) do not equal to being right

Beskar

10-16-2012, 17:57

The average person can't even point out France on a map.

*points to France on the map*

rvg

10-16-2012, 18:13

*points to France on the map*

That's India.

Papewaio

10-16-2012, 20:39

I prefer looking at The map of Tasmania. Particularly the wetlands. :smoking:

Beskar

10-18-2012, 05:29

That's India.

Typical bad American geography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li11ZQqZHQM (contains a couple of swearwords)

Furunculus

10-18-2012, 10:48

In my experience the people who really care about religious non-evolutionists etc are those who don't realize how dumb most "pro-science" politicians are. Between "skeptic" and credulous/utopian I'll take "skeptic".

I am a big fan of Goulds NOMA, even if I am irreligious. People who tend to use science as the be all end all are generally 20 year old white suburbanites who use the words science and belief interchangeably/

100% brothers!

Sasaki Kojiro

10-19-2012, 05:56

Note that creationism is a central belief among those who hold it, generally, and so colors all other beliefs.

So does atheism/secularism. So does progressivism, conservatism, environmentalism, and libertarianism. People who can be described by these "isms" very frequently have provably wrong beliefs that are part of their supporting framework. There's nothing special about religion in that regard. Religion is only special in that regard to people who are ideologically on the side of science/secularism. Religious people do the same thing--"so are descended from an ape on your mothers side or your fathers side?" etc. Picking out creationism is the intellectual equivalent of that.

Neuroscience.

What's it good for besides medicine?

They're not equivalent roles. Science is not a religion surrogate, and religion should not be treated as an equal-not because I dislike religion, but because they're apples and oranges.

Yes, science isn't a religion surrogate. It shouldn't be treated as such. But people do. Go back and read the higg's boson thread and see how giddy people were.

And actually you are doing the apples to oranges comparison here. You can't just look at the places where people use religion to infringe on science's territory and criticize religion, you should look at where people use science to infringe on religion/humanities--as in the case of utilitarianism. Who would you rather have in congress, someone who follows Bentham or someone who follows the Bible?

Organised religion has never given me anything

You sure about that?

Astronomy is a legitimate science. Astrology would be a better comparison because that's nonsense, too.

If you do actually mean astronomy and mean that teaching creationist nonsense is harmless because it would still be less than 1% of the curriculum, then I still disagree.

No, I mean they are insignificant because the subject is insignificant. Knowledge about quasars and the size of the universe doesn't do anything but satisfy our curiosity.

The only reason the truth about where we came from is important is so that we don't believe bogus misleading stories about it. The teaching of evolution has a very poor track record in that regard--just go listen to people talking about evolution and gender roles.

'll tolerate the religionists as long as they keep to themselves and keep themselves occupied with their "spiritual wellbeing" or their place in the hypothetical afterlife, neither wich bothers me. Biology is a science which holds evolution as the prevailing theory, and if the creationists don't approve then they can quite frankly go to hell.

Why should I respect your contempt for creationists?

This seems like a typical result to overvaluing science to me. Unwarranted contempt for those who reject parts of it.

Science is to gather as much data as possible, verify or discard it and draw conclusions.
...
The place where science is really useful is where it breaks preconceptions. This doesn't make sense at first or even second glance, but it's how the world works.

You can't gather data on some things. But you can believe you are, believe it's verified, and believe you are breaking preconceptions. Especially if you really want to do that. Laughable conclusions are very very common in psychology.

You really don't have a conception of an alternative method to science for studying humanity?

And that was my point. Yet learning about critical thinking is still a vast improvement over the old "the authority is 100% correct, always". Which are what the creationists are doing.

Why do you think they are doing that? What a strange idea.

They believe what makes them feel good, or more confidant, or more secure in holding together a worldview, or something like that. Watch the guy in Ronin's video. You really think he's going "the authority is always correct, always"?

You've never met someone who says "the scientific consensus!" or "studies show!" when they don't know much about it? Are you seriously picking out creationism as something that makes appeals to authority?

Special brand of stupid? Perhaps not. Dangerous brand of stupid, due to moderatly successful attempts of spreading their policy and viewpoint on science? Now we're getting somewhere.

What's dangerous about it? "Critical thinking" one sentence, hyperbole the next.

And about the cherry picking. Why exactly should you allow the most blatantly, provably wrong beliefs to stand uncontested?

You should you treat provably wrong beliefs as worse than obviously wrong beliefs? Why should we care about how blatantly wrong something is more than we care about how bad it is that someone is wrong about it? And usually the most important things aren't provable, they are about values.

It's blatantly, provably wrong that knocking on wood doesn't do anything. But superstitions like that are usually trivial.

Papewaio

10-19-2012, 07:38

It is fine if someone wishes to tap wood to stop bad luck. They can have whatever self belief they want.

However when they start demanding that it be taught in health education that tappin wood is a cure all particular for the sins of a wood knocking up a young lass then one needs to draw a line.

Similarly when other fairy tales are taught that contradict medicine.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-19-2012, 09:04

There was a famous case involving autistic kids. Sometimes they won't communicate. So a guy invented a kind of computer typewriter deal and found that if a teachers aid held onto the autistic kids shirtsleeve lightly to steady their hand, they could type out messages, coherent messages. This became a big thing, there was funding for lots of the devices and lots of aids, a whole institute was set up. Many many parents believed they were talking to their kids...that their kids were telling them they loved them, for the first time. Only as it turned out, it only worked because of the instructors hand on the sleeve--a kind of unconscious feedback loop between her and the kid. The **** hit the fan when some "kids" started accusing their parents of molesting them. People got fired, some dads had to move out of their houses, reputations were ruined. Then they figured out it had all been pseudo-science.

Now maybe you'll say "that wasn't science. It turned out to be inaccurate". That's a very convenient definition.

If you couldn't sit down and think of a dozen cases like this given some time, you need to go read up.

The particular contempt some people have for creationists is ideological prejudice masquerading as enlightenment.

Ironside

10-19-2012, 09:25

You can't gather data on some things. But you can believe you are, believe it's verified, and believe you are breaking preconceptions. Especially if you really want to do that. Laughable conclusions are very very common in psychology.

You really don't have a conception of an alternative method to science for studying humanity?

So there's matters where there are no such things as experience? Making it impossible to study it in any way? Brilliant, dear sir, brilliant.

Sure most matters in social science have no complete answer, but even density answers (aka most people react like this) is an answer. Even conflicting data is an answer. An educated guess is generally better than a random guess.

Science is to gather the available data (and determine it's accuracy) and be prepared not to draw any premature conclusions from it. Since everybody have premature conclusions it's a far from perfect method and that the data is often incomplete doesn't help either.
And that's why I have problems seeing an alternative method. I call every method based on building the theory up from it's data, science. The common method of making up the theory first and then see if the data fits, is only scientific when you can admit that you was wrong. Humans hate that. But every method has that flaw.

Why do you think they are doing that? What a strange idea.

They believe what makes them feel good, or more confidant, or more secure in holding together a worldview, or something like that. Watch the guy in Ronin's video. You really think he's going "the authority is always correct, always"?

You've never met someone who says "the scientific consensus!" or "studies show!" when they don't know much about it? Are you seriously picking out creationism as something that makes appeals to authority?

The authority in that case is that interpretation of the Bible. Since it's considered by default correct, everything else is built on that. Yes, people are prone to falling to authorities, so the best option is making sure to make people understand that those authorities are fallable, and that those authorities that exist are the best possible at that point.

What's dangerous about it? "Critical thinking" one sentence, hyperbole the next.
You gave the answer yourself.

They believe what makes them feel good, or more confidant, or more secure in holding together a worldview
I threaten that with evolution. It's a very big mental threat. This threat cannot be eliminated without spreading your worldview and suppress the threating worldview.

It this consisting with the actions taken? Yes, that's why they focus so much on school education for example.

More general, dogmatic views are usually bad for progress and having an evolutionary framework (both it's benefits and flaws) is an amazing tool to understand things in a lot more fields than biology.

There's plenty of beliefs that doesn't have that problem, so it's one of the main reasons on why creationism is treated differently

You should you treat provably wrong beliefs as worse than obviously wrong beliefs? Why should we care about how blatantly wrong something is more than we care about how bad it is that someone is wrong about it? And usually the most important things aren't provable, they are about values.

It's blatantly, provably wrong that knocking on wood doesn't do anything. But superstitions like that are usually trivial.

Fair enough, harmless and trivial might not be needed to be contested (I usually don't unless it's painfully contradictive), but when it stops being that it's another matter.

And if you're going to talk about values, then talk about them. Do not drag in something else to try to strenghten the claims from a book where you're cherry picking and ignoring most of the values expressed in it anyway.

Kralizec

10-19-2012, 11:19

"Neuroscience" (monty)
What's it good for besides medicine?

Not a lot I suppose. What is religion good for outside giving people emotional comfort etc?

Neurologists aren't trying to tell churches what they must preach or what to put in their books. It would be nice if the churches had the same attitude towards science.

Of course there are people like Dawkins who never miss an opportunity to bash religion for its doctrines. I don't approve, I'd rather just live and let live. But Dawkins and others do this as a reaction to what they see as religious activism, a much more widespread phenomenon.

Yes, science isn't a religion surrogate. It shouldn't be treated as such. But people do. Go back and read the higg's boson thread and see how giddy people were.

And actually you are doing the apples to oranges comparison here. You can't just look at the places where people use religion to infringe on science's territory and criticize religion, you should look at where people use science to infringe on religion/humanities--as in the case of utilitarianism. Who would you rather have in congress, someone who follows Bentham or someone who follows the Bible?

That people were excited about the Higgs Boson means nothing. They're not treating it as a religion surrogate, that's your projection.

If we discount bigotry against religion, the only places where religion is being infringed on is areas that religion has wrongly claimed for their own. Biology textbooks are a case in point.

Bentham had a lot of interesting ideas; some good ones and some less than good. I'd rather have him as a representative than, say, G.W. Bush.

You sure about that?

Pretty sure.

There were/are lot's of adherents to organised religion who made great contributions to humanity and by extension, my welfare. But that's not quite the same thing, is it?

No, I mean they are insignificant because the subject is insignificant. Knowledge about quasars and the size of the universe doesn't do anything but satisfy our curiosity.

The only reason the truth about where we came from is important is so that we don't believe bogus misleading stories about it. The teaching of evolution has a very poor track record in that regard--just go listen to people talking about evolution and gender roles.

That a particular batch of knowledge isn't relevant for most people's lives is no excuse to teach absolute nonsense in its stead.

Nor is the fact that a lot of people don't understand the concepts very well an excuse to replace it.

I agree with the bolded part. If someone rejects the scientific theory of evolution because he believes in the Biblical origin story, fine, as long as we're clear that this belief is grounded in faith and nothing else. What I object to is:
- creationists trying to block evolution from school textbooks. Their motivation is that they don't want children to learn things which contradict the bible, even if it's the scientific consensus. I have no respect for their motivation in this regard. As said, I don't object to (non-mandatory) religious classes where they learn that religion holds a different view. Which brings me to the next point:
- intelligent design advocates who insist on recognition that their poorly disguised biblical viewpoint is scientifically just as sound as the theory of evolution

Why should I respect your contempt for creationists?

You don't need to. I woulnd't say that I despise creationists; I think that the belief itself is silly but I recognise that they can otherwise be likable people.

It's when they try to censor scientific views and try to influence what can and can't be tought to children that contempt comes into play.

There was a famous case involving autistic kids. Sometimes they won't communicate. So a guy invented a kind of computer typewriter deal and found that if a teachers aid held onto the autistic kids shirtsleeve lightly to steady their hand, they could type out messages, coherent messages. This became a big thing, there was funding for lots of the devices and lots of aids, a whole institute was set up. Many many parents believed they were talking to their kids...that their kids were telling them they loved them, for the first time. Only as it turned out, it only worked because of the instructors hand on the sleeve--a kind of unconscious feedback loop between her and the kid. The **** hit the fan when some "kids" started accusing their parents of molesting them. People got fired, some dads had to move out of their houses, reputations were ruined. Then they figured out it had all been pseudo-science.

Now maybe you'll say "that wasn't science. It turned out to be inaccurate". That's a very convenient definition.

If you couldn't sit down and think of a dozen cases like this given some time, you need to go read up.

The particular contempt some people have for creationists is ideological prejudice masquerading as enlightenment.

I'd like to see a link, because it sounds like an interesting story.

I'll take your word for it that this really happened, but even so, big deal. Professional misconduct happens in every sector.

Fraud does happen in science; especially the social sciences seem vulnerable to this. And sometimes scientists who act in good faith make mistakes or wrong assumptions. But here's the crux: nobody ever seriously argued that the scientific consensus is always right, or cast in stone.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here, from the looks of it you're just mud throwing at the scientific community.

CBR

10-19-2012, 13:15

I'd like to see a link, because it sounds like an interesting story.
Must be this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_communication

More to do with the public and courts accepting something before there ever was a scientific consensus. And for stuff like that there are obviously several examples.

Montmorency

10-19-2012, 20:58

So does atheism/secularism. So does progressivism, conservatism, environmentalism, and libertarianism. People who can be described by these "isms" very frequently have provably wrong beliefs that are part of their supporting framework. There's nothing special about religion in that regard. Religion is only special in that regard to people who are ideologically on the side of science/secularism. Religious people do the same thing--"so are descended from an ape on your mothers side or your fathers side?" etc. Picking out creationism is the intellectual equivalent of that.

Once again, you haven't shown that these -isms should be considered equal.

What's it good for besides medicine?

Humans are very centralized organisms...

And actually you are doing the apples to oranges comparison here. You can't just look at the places where people use religion to infringe on science's territory and criticize religion, you should look at where people use science to infringe on religion/humanities--as in the case of utilitarianism. Who would you rather have in congress, someone who follows Bentham or someone who follows the Bible?

Can science infringe on the humanities?

The only reason the truth about where we came from is important is so that we don't believe bogus misleading stories about it. The teaching of evolution has a very poor track record in that regard--just go listen to people talking about evolution and gender roles.

So palaeo-anthropological speculation is science?

Unwarranted contempt for those who reject parts of it.

Why is it unwarranted?

You can't gather data on some things. But you can believe you are, believe it's verified, and believe you are breaking preconceptions. Especially if you really want to do that. Laughable conclusions are very very common in psychology.

Laughable conclusions are typically attributable to the circumscribed character of the subjects. And data can be gathered on anything; the question is as to the formulation.

You've never met someone who says "the scientific consensus!" or "studies show!" when they don't know much about it? Are you seriously picking out creationism as something that makes appeals to authority?

Religion is more conducive to patriotic sequaciousness than science.

And usually the most important things aren't provable, they are about values.

Why are they important?

But superstitions like that are usually trivial.

Creationism is the equivalent of knocking on wood?

Sasaki Kojiro

10-21-2012, 08:29

So there's matters where there are no such things as experience? Making it impossible to study it in any way? Brilliant, dear sir, brilliant.

Sure most matters in social science have no complete answer, but even density answers (aka most people react like this) is an answer. Even conflicting data is an answer. An educated guess is generally better than a random guess.

Science is to gather the available data (and determine it's accuracy) and be prepared not to draw any premature conclusions from it.

I'll take your word for it that this really happened, but even so, big deal. Professional misconduct happens in every sector.

Fraud does happen in science; especially the social sciences seem vulnerable to this. And sometimes scientists who act in good faith make mistakes or wrong assumptions. But here's the crux: nobody ever seriously argued that the scientific consensus is always right, or cast in stone.

Not a lot I suppose. What is religion good for outside giving people emotional comfort etc?

*******

I'm going to pick out these four quotes as representing the gist of it...that (1) Science is THE method, even when limited the alternative is a "random guess" (2) When we talk about Science in general we are talking about an ideal process with presumed perfect human actors--someone drawing premature conclusions is not doing science, but a religious person not being humble is being religious in the standard way(3) The errors of science are mostly fraud or mistakes by people acting in good faith, just like "every sector"--even in the social sciences (4) Everyone knows that science doesn't claim to be always right and have all the answers, so the fact that people treat it like it is is irrelevant (5) Religion is just a silly thing that gives some people emotional comfort

********

Everyone has a certain degree of religiosity, some more or much more than others. This will be present regardless of whether they are raised in a religion. Everyone is prone to dogmatism to a certain degree. Everyone has some amount of desire for a coherent world view, and will include false beliefs in it if they have to. There are saints who humbly avoided dogmatism and arrogance, and scientists who stay objective and are truly strict about limiting their conclusions. There are religious people who go by the book and atheists who go by popular science texts. Am I drawing equivalencies? No, I'm saying those atheists are worse.

Religion as a body of beliefs and doctrines is designed to give something for everyone. There are basic and oversimplified sets of rules and beliefs, and more complicated theology for those who go beyond that. There is a strong emotional component that in Christianity tends to be compassionate and humble.

Science as a method is analytical, rationalistic, and involves cumulative empirical research over time. This, as we know, gets you truth in many areas where religion would never have come close. Religious people have very often used it to make great advances, often it has been seen as a religious task. So what does it mean when people act like science and religion are opposed? Often, and this is what we are discussing here, they want to use a method that is analytical, rationalistic, and involves cumulative empirical research over time to answer the "big questions"--they want to do morality, the meaning of life, basic values, what society should be like, with that scientific method. Otherwise, who cares whether there was a big bang or god created the universe?

So now you take someone who would have been christian, who has a certain level of religiosity, dogmatism, puritanism, need for a strongly held world view and sense of morality, and you put them out in the world and tell them science is the only respectable way and they will end up crazy. You end up with a Bentham:

The day has been, I grieve to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?

Is this science? Certainly not. Is it what you get when people try to use the intellectual tools of science to answer questions of morality? Very frequently. This shows up in congressmen too:

I made this lifestyle change many years ago, because I consider all life on our Earth to be sacred. As a vegan, I choose not to eat any animals or animal products.
...
It is our sense of interconnection with all living things that brings us to respect the rights of animals; to understand that animals are not to be "lower than"; that animals should not have less of a claim to existence, less of a claim to the possibility of survival, less of a claim to dignity . . . I would include advocacy of animal rights in the Department of Peace, which I have already proposed to Congress.

This kind of belief about animals is sick, disgusting, and much much more dangerous than believing in creationism. Considering animals the equal to people would be bad enough but these people often like animals more than they do people. Scientists (religious and atheist) who want to do animal testing to help create medicines are often stymied by animal rights protesters who have a sway in universities that religious people could only dream of. It's as bad as the prevention of stem cell research by people who have religious beliefs about the soul.

We live in a country where it's understood that religion should have some separation from the state, that religious freedom is important, that we aren't going to try to make the whole country religious, and we have a basically decent religion in Christianity that has good qualities and known faults, that isn't going to change much and that people in general don't respect being used as an appeal to authority.

What we lack is a similar understanding about science. Currently the mainstream of thought in universities and in the media is dangerously deluded regarding science. To many people "studies show..." puts them in the same accepting mindset that "the bible says..." does for certain religious people. When it comes to the hard sciences, people overestimate their worth and benefit and have dreams of progress to a utopia. And when it comes to the humanities, belief in the primacy of logic and rationalism leads to utilitarianism and other cesspools, while belief in the cumulative progress leads to the belief that we can read the latest research or listen to the "top thinkers" of the time and learn what we need to know (in the way that we can about physics or chemistry), when in fact we have to work very hard, as individuals, to reach the level of the ancients. Look at modern philosophy, for example, and you can easily find statements like "It is no more wrong to slap a baby than it is to slap a horse, assuming you slap the horse hard enough".

The true study of the "big questions" must come from one's own life experience and the experience of others. It must be comprehended, you can not pick it up from simply reading words and certainly not from a statistical analysis of data. There is no substitute or shortcut. Many people today believe there is. They have an ideology that they believe in, with a few core texts (perhaps Ayn Rand). They believe in a historical narrative that makes them excessively confident in traditional patriotic ideas--or perhaps they read Howard Zinn instead. Perhaps if they aren't christian the believe in nihilism, or go for something new-agey, or take utilitarianism as true because they feel they have some need of a foundation. Often they see the world in fairly simple terms--intelligent people are pro-science and free of religious superstition, progress in society can happen just like it does in chemistry if only we could be free of tradition, and on moral issues the most modern thinkers are the best. And that's sad because that attitude contains nothing like the hard-headedness, mental asceticism, independence of mind and thirst for the truth that a good scientist has.

I don't respect people treating belief in creationism as an intellectual scarlet letter, when their motivations for doing so are rooted in an ideology that is worse than christianity. Believe me, I would be happy if fundamentalist religion decreased in this country--but only if hardcore libertarianism and various left wing ideologies died out at the same time.

But essentially, you can't be very far to the left and not think the above is nonsense :shrug:

rvg

10-21-2012, 21:16

...This kind of belief about animals is sick, disgusting, and much much more dangerous than believing in creationism. Considering animals the equal to people would be bad enough but these people often like animals more than they do people. Scientists (religious and atheist) who want to do animal testing to help create medicines are often stymied by animal rights protesters who have a sway in universities that religious people could only dream of. It's as bad as the prevention of stem cell research by people who have religious beliefs about the soul...

Couldn't agree more. People who put the lives of animals on par or above human lives are quite simply monsters. Their animal worship oftentimes goes hand in hand with utter contempt for humanity, and it's utterly despicable: I would refuse to shake hands with a man who would donate money to an animal shelter instead of, say, giving money to a program that feeds hungry children.

Montmorency

10-21-2012, 21:40

Then again, we are animals as well. Why should we give ourselves special treatment? Just because it's more conducive to widespread proliferation?

It always comes down to exceptionalism... :mellow:

So what does it mean when people act like science and religion are opposed?

Frankly, PVC gives it a better treatment than you.

But essentially, you can't be very far to the left and not think the above is nonsense

So all lefties look to Science for values and moral guidance? I contest.

What we lack is a similar understanding about science.

Let this be a major point of contention between us. There is no such "understanding" concerning religion in America.

This kind of belief about animals is sick, disgusting, and much much more dangerous than believing in creationism. Considering animals the equal to people would be bad enough but these people often like animals more than they do people. Scientists (religious and atheist) who want to do animal testing to help create medicines are often stymied by animal rights protesters who have a sway in universities that religious people could only dream of. It's as bad as the prevention of stem cell research by people who have religious beliefs about the soul.

Allow them to vent while quietly ignoring them. Tangentially, I find it interesting that I hated such individuals - as you seemingly do - most at the height of my socialist phase.

people overestimate their worth and benefit

If the hard sciences can be said to have any worth and benefit, they must be considered maximal.

to reach the level of the ancients.

:freak:

Look at modern philosophy, for example, and you can easily find statements like "It is no more wrong to slap a baby than it is to slap a horse, assuming you slap the horse hard enough".

Are you sure this is not a red herring?

The true study of the "big questions" must come from one's own life experience and the experience of others.

What are these questions? Anyway, this sounds like platitudinous pop pablum to me. :wink:

the believe in nihilism

I don't see how it could be possible for a living human to believe in nihilism.

historical narrative

History is by definition a narrative. Do you stomach only chronologies? "Tell me everything or tell me nothing"?

and on moral issues the most modern thinkers are the best

It is no less simplistic to say that the most ancient thinkers are the best.

Most of what I haven't directly quoted or alluded to should check out, I suppose.

HoreTore

10-21-2012, 22:06

This thread has blown the absurd-o-meter.

I have Navaros-nostalgia.

Papewaio

10-21-2012, 22:40

IMDHO you will find some people who are not religious at all. They may or may not understand science.

Similarly there are those who are deeply religious and deep scientific thinkers.

Philosophy =/= Science

Also due to statistical limitations Social Sciences lag behind physical sciences. Until we have a mole of humans social sciences will be at a disadvantage.

=][=
Creationism, Greenpeace, PETA are all lacking in critical thinking. They appeal to literal or emotional followers, who are part of the herd animal. Broken clocks get things right occasionally, it does not mean I have to respect their poorly thought out ideas.

Georges Lemaître was one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. Religion is good when it is used to open up minds, it is terrible when it is used to stop thinking.

Strike For The South

10-22-2012, 02:58

The term gadfly comes to mind

I think I will go outside and speak to my animals

Kralizec

10-22-2012, 08:25

Everyone has a certain degree of religiosity, some more or much more than others. This will be present regardless of whether they are raised in a religion. Everyone is prone to dogmatism to a certain degree. Everyone has some amount of desire for a coherent world view, and will include false beliefs in it if they have to. There are saints who humbly avoided dogmatism and arrogance, and scientists who stay objective and are truly strict about limiting their conclusions. There are religious people who go by the book and atheists who go by popular science texts. Am I drawing equivalencies? No, I'm saying those atheists are worse.

Ridiculous.

(in reference to Bentham)
Is this science? Certainly not. Is it what you get when people try to use the intellectual tools of science to answer questions of morality? Very frequently. This shows up in congressmen too:

If you're going to quote Bentham from wikipedia, why did you leave out the rest?

Bentham did not object to medical experiments on animals, if the experiments had in mind a particular goal of benefit to humanity and had a reasonable chance of achieving that goal. He wrote that otherwise he had a "decided and insuperable objection" to causing pain to animals, in part because of the harmful effects such practices might have on human beings. In a letter to the editor of the Morning Chronicle in March 1825, he wrote:

I never have seen, nor ever can see, any objection to the putting of dogs and other inferior animals to pain, in the way of medical experiment, when that experiment has a determinate object, beneficial to mankind, accompanied with a fair prospect of the accomplishment of it. But I have a decided and insuperable objection to the putting of them to pain without any such view. To my apprehension, every act by which, without prospect of preponderant good, pain is knowingly and willingly produced in any being whatsoever, is an act of cruelty; and, like other bad habits, the more the correspondent habit is indulged in, the stronger it grows, and the more frequently productive of its bad fruit. I am unable to comprehend how it should be, that to him to whom it is a matter of amusement to see a dog or a horse suffer, it should not be matter of like amusement to see a man suffer; seeing, as I do, how much more morality as well as intelligence, an adult quadruped of those and many other species has in him, than any biped has for some months after he has been brought into existence; nor does it appear to me how it should be, that a person to whom the production of pain, either in the one or in the other instance, is a source of amusement, would scruple to give himself that amusement when he could do so under an assurance of impunity.

This kind of belief about animals is sick, disgusting, and much much more dangerous than believing in creationism. Considering animals the equal to people would be bad enough but these people often like animals more than they do people. Scientists (religious and atheist) who want to do animal testing to help create medicines are often stymied by animal rights protesters who have a sway in universities that religious people could only dream of. It's as bad as the prevention of stem cell research by people who have religious beliefs about the soul.

See above.

As for the actual loons who oppose experimentation on animals and feel they should be given equal rights, I'll quote you. Is this science? Certainly not. Then why bring it up?

What we lack is a similar understanding about science. Currently the mainstream of thought in universities and in the media is dangerously deluded regarding science. To many people "studies show..." puts them in the same accepting mindset that "the bible says..." does for certain religious people. When it comes to the hard sciences, people overestimate their worth and benefit and have dreams of progress to a utopia. And when it comes to the humanities, belief in the primacy of logic and rationalism leads to utilitarianism and other cesspools, while belief in the cumulative progress leads to the belief that we can read the latest research or listen to the "top thinkers" of the time and learn what we need to know (in the way that we can about physics or chemistry), when in fact we have to work very hard, as individuals, to reach the level of the ancients. Look at modern philosophy, for example, and you can easily find statements like "It is no more wrong to slap a baby than it is to slap a horse, assuming you slap the horse hard enough".

That people might not understand, not appreciate or misuse the knowledge of science doesn't detract from the validity of science itself. You can name as many people as you like who don't understand evolution yet refer to it discussions, or people who use evolution to justify social darwinism etc., but you still won't have an argument not to teach the theory of evolution in schools, much less against the theory itself.

There were also bad philosophers in ancient times, the sophists come to mind. The ancient philosophers that are now famours were a tiny minority amongst their peers.

Utilitarianism is not a cesspool just because you disagree with it.

I don't respect people treating belief in creationism as an intellectual scarlet letter, when their motivations for doing so are rooted in an ideology that is worse than christianity. Believe me, I would be happy if fundamentalist religion decreased in this country--but only if hardcore libertarianism and various left wing ideologies died out at the same time.

Are you a creationist?

If no, then why do you go to such lengths to defend it?

But essentially, you can't be very far to the left and not think the above is nonsense :shrug:

Probably not.

However you don't have to be very far to the left, or left of the center at all, in order to think that it's nonsense.

Ironside

10-22-2012, 10:06

So, short version. Some people need the safety of religion to feel safe in their moral compass. True. Some can't even comprehend something else.
Now, the problem is the following. Do the same defense for Hinduism and it's caste system as you're doing with Christianity. Not even Christianity can fully agree on what's right.

Philosophy isn't science. They've been contradicting eachother for centuries for example (why Aristoteles was the big man for centuries, despite being testably wrong), but it does touch the thing you're after. It's a lot about values. Basically if I read you right, you're blaming science for the loss of a coherant belief system about values, aka religion, causing confusion for many people. Some points there, but the determinism in Calvinism and the chosen one attitude in Jehova's vitness are examples of different value systems within the same religion.

So religions can't protect values either (the Bible was used to justify slavery and also to abolish it). So instead you're stuck with several ethical frameworks to work from. How to determine which one to use? First, establish the goal (not science), then use experience and data (aka science) to see how to come closest to the goal by using reasonable methods and working from what you got (humans are different and flawed, that needs to be taken into account).

Is this related to Creationism? Not really. There's no fundamental contradiction between evolution and the Bible. And it's not about ethics. You talk about religion vs science? This is the case where a small religious group charges in and screams: I challenge you science, with my beliefs!!

Short note on extreme animal rights activists. They often seem to conflate animals with children and innocence. That's what causing the compass to go a bit out of whack. Most of them (animal activists) are simply empathic for the animals and do not want to cause needless suffering.

The true study of the "big questions" must come from one's own life experience and the experience of others. It must be comprehended, you can not pick it up from simply reading words and certainly not from a statistical analysis of data. There is no substitute or shortcut. Many people today believe there is.
Certainly. The problem shows up in the experience of others (and yourself, but that's another matter). Very few will meet and fully experience enough people to be well rounded on the "big questions", so you have to take that short cut of reading words and data. The comprehension is less than the full experince, but it will still be helpful.

HoreTore

10-22-2012, 12:33

Couldn't agree more. People who put the lives of animals on par or above human lives are quite simply monsters. Their animal worship oftentimes goes hand in hand with utter contempt for humanity, and it's utterly despicable: I would refuse to shake hands with a man who would donate money to an animal shelter instead of, say, giving money to a program that feeds hungry children.

So....

Dog owners are evil and despicable? There are plenty of hungry kids in the world, yet they spend their money on dogfood instead of the kids?

I doubt you'll have many chances to refuse a handshake, I sincerely doubt many people are willing to shake hands with someone who spews such drivel.

rvg

10-22-2012, 13:13

So....

Dog owners are evil and despicable? There are plenty of hungry kids in the world, yet they spend their money on dogfood instead of the kids?

You said it, not I.

Beskar

10-22-2012, 15:29

I give money to the RSPCA and I also give money to Oxfam.

Animals do have rights, they have the right not to be tortured and exploited. If you adopt the religious caretaker approach, God gave you the mandate to look after the world, not house animals in disgusting conditions to rot, suffer and cause misery. Basic rights to animals is essential basis of a moral society.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-22-2012, 18:53

So all lefties look to Science for values and moral guidance? I contest.

Me too.

They look to a secular culture that believes in a certain way of determining values. It inherited many ideas from christianity. Many of them still have religion in some form. But it seems like pseudo-science about the effect of buddhist meditation on the mind is a-ok with the supposedly pro-science people...

Let this be a major point of contention between us. There is no such "understanding" concerning religion in America.

There is enough of an understanding.

What are these questions? Anyway, this sounds like platitudinous pop pablum to me. :wink:

Sure. It's a platitude because it would be very difficult to really describe in words. That's part of the point.

History is by definition a narrative. Do you stomach only chronologies? "Tell me everything or tell me nothing"?

That's not true about history. It's too complex to simplify into a narrative (define roughly as a story simple enough for you to explain it verbally and have someone understand it). That's why historical narratives end up saying things like "and then Rome fell, and Europe was plunged into the dark ages".

It is no less simplistic to say that the most ancient thinkers are the best.

I don't say that. Seneca is good but so is Eric Hoffer.

A large part of what such thinkers have to deal with was the same then as it is now. There hasn't been fundamental progress in understanding, say, when should we be selfless, how selfless to be, and how to cultivate it as a virtue.

Other questions are circumstantial to the times and involve the adaptations people have had to make to changes in the world. So there is an important place for modern thinkers, but older thinkers are crucial as well--not only because there is a very limited number of great thinkers, but because they dealt with some things honestly that we lie about, and they had some things right that we have wrong.

If you're going to quote Bentham from wikipedia, why did you leave out the rest?
See above.

As for the actual loons who oppose experimentation on animals and feel they should be given equal rights, I'll quote you. Is this science? Certainly not. Then why bring it up?

That people might not understand, not appreciate or misuse the knowledge of science doesn't detract from the validity of science itself. You can name as many people as you like who don't understand evolution yet refer to it discussions, or people who use evolution to justify social darwinism etc., but you still won't have an argument not to teach the theory of evolution in schools, much less against the theory itself.

Yes, and I could say the same about religion--people who misuse it etc.

But the validity of science is restricted to a very small area.

We are arguing about the misuse of it--one case is equal rights for animals, which you rightly call loony, but there are many others.

Are you a creationist?

If no, then why do you go to such lengths to defend it?

Defense can be a good method of offense.

So, short version. Some people need the safety of religion to feel safe in their moral compass. True. Some can't even comprehend something else.

Some people need to feel like their moral compass is rational and logically cohesive, and can't comprehend anything else. You don't think this is bad, it's something you'd praise about a moral compass?

Now, the problem is the following. Do the same defense for Hinduism and it's caste system as you're doing with Christianity. Not even Christianity can fully agree on what's right.

Philosophy isn't science. They've been contradicting eachother for centuries for example (why Aristoteles was the big man for centuries, despite being testably wrong), but it does touch the thing you're after. It's a lot about values. Basically if I read you right, you're blaming science for the loss of a coherant belief system about values, aka religion, causing confusion for many people. Some points there, but the determinism in Calvinism and the chosen one attitude in Jehova's vitness are examples of different value systems within the same religion.

So religions can't protect values either (the Bible was used to justify slavery and also to abolish it). So instead you're stuck with several ethical frameworks to work from. How to determine which one to use?

I wouldn't say that science has done that, it's more like a secular culture that need not have existed at the same time as secular advances. But I'm not talking about loss of religion in slums.

Religious people have adjusted and changed their beliefs practically continuously, for all they are accused of being dogmatic. God and inspiration have usually been seen as a higher authority than bible doctrine--when you bring up the different sects you support that.

The bible was used to justify slavery, as was science, but it was largely evangelism that ended slavery (in the us/uk).

If you want to justify a vice, it's easy to rationalize or misuse science. You can take some theory as true, or some absurd premise as true, and be confident that you have built logically on top of that. People who want to justify vice don't usually become satanists.

Moral and other big questions are usually deeply passionate. But science is supposed to be dispassionate. To science nothing is sacred. But imagine a moral philosophy which didn't consider human life to be sacred.

First, establish the goal (not science), then use experience and data (aka science) to see how to come closest to the goal by using reasonable methods and working from what you got (humans are different and flawed, that needs to be taken into account).

Certainly. The problem shows up in the experience of others (and yourself, but that's another matter). Very few will meet and fully experience enough people to be well rounded on the "big questions", so you have to take that short cut of reading words and data. The comprehension is less than the full experince, but it will still be helpful.

It will only be helpful if it's right. And if there isn't widespread comprehension, how will the truth spread over society?

Using science or a data driven approach to find the answer to the big questions doesn't work. Neither does the overly rational and logical approach. As an analogy, think of the people who try to use science or logic to figure out something social like dating.

If it's very difficult to truly grasp the big questions then we should avoid everything that tends to fool us into thinking we have the answers. It's absurd to pick out creationists as a special kind of dogmatic and then (essentially) praise college kids going off of what their professor tells them about the latest psychology study. I don't know how it is in Sweden, but in America the people who don't go off of tradition or religion simply turn to some other authority--they are the ones who quote from newspapers admiringly, who speak the names of 20th century philosophers and artists reverently, the ones who say "studies show that people...".

Montmorency

10-22-2012, 19:18

That's not true about history. It's too complex to simplify into a narrative (define roughly as a story simple enough for you to explain it verbally and have someone understand it). That's why historical narratives end up saying things like "and then Rome fell, and Europe was plunged into the dark ages".

Chronology is complex. History is about simplifying chronology into a comprehensible narrative. I notice you picked a very simplistic and discredited narrative, anyway.

There is enough of an understanding.

Then it is simply prejudice against science which you proselytize. Religion in America very clearly has an ideological upper hand.

A large part of what such thinkers have to deal with was the same then as it is now.

For how much longer?

Other questions are circumstantial to the times and involve the adaptations people have had to make to changes in the world. So there is an important place for modern thinkers, but older thinkers are crucial as well--not only because there is a very limited number of great thinkers, but because they dealt with some things honestly that we lie about, and they had some things right that we have wrong.

Perhaps you relate to the moral conclusions of the greats, I don't know. I think that's silly, but we'll leave it aside. How can you see their non-moral philosophy, on the other hand, as having any worth at all? At least, I hope you don't.

Defense can be a good method of offense.

The attacker has the advantage of choosing the point of concentration, unless the defender has extensive reserves and excellent intelligence - this has up to now not usually been the case. :smartass:

Yes, and I could say the same about religion--people who misuse it

This is crucial. It is impossible to misuse religion; it is possible to misuse a particular fixed doctrine, but religion is whatever one wants it to be. Science, however, at least within a particular historical context, can indeed be misused - that is, misapplied.

We are arguing about the misuse of it

But you aren't referring to the misuse of science - you are referring to the derivation of inappropriate - as you see it - conclusions from scientific data. This is quite an important distinction.

Some people need to feel like their moral compass is rational and logically cohesive

You don't believe your moral compass is rational and logically coherent or consistent? I've never heard that one before. Unusual. Does that explain your strange beliefs? :uhoh:

But imagine a moral philosophy which didn't consider human life to be sacred.

Done. Easy.

As an analogy, think of the people who try to use science or logic to figure out something social like dating.

They presumably try to investigate particular aspects of the courtship ritual. What's wrong with that? Ethology can be applied to humans just as well as to chimps...

a completely inoffensive name

10-22-2012, 19:18

So you are basically saying that for many pro-science individuals, aggregate data has become their god, and the new commandments are whatever interpretation they can find of the data that makes them feel comfortable. And this is dangerous because data and science in general has an authority that religion no longer holds in modern society. People think it is obvious that there is no true reading of the bible, only competing opinions but mathematical tools are somehow impartial and foolproof in showing us the truth. Thus the pro-science people are more dangerous?

Sasaki Kojiro

10-22-2012, 20:56

Chronology is complex. History is about simplifying chronology into a comprehensible narrative. I notice you picked a very simplistic and discredited narrative, anyway.

Believed for many years, still widespread, still argued for by some people. Simplistic narratives can be discredited but not replaced by a good narrative.

Anyway, history is about much more than even the attempts at creating a comprehensible narrative.

Then it is simply prejudice against science which you proselytize. Religion in America very clearly has an ideological upper hand.

Disagree.

For how much longer?

Perhaps you relate to the moral conclusions of the greats, I don't know. I think that's silly, but we'll leave it aside. How can you see their non-moral philosophy, on the other hand, as having any worth at all? At least, I hope you don't.

Most of non moral philosophy never had any worth to begin with.

Some things like parts of political philosophy change with time because we have a different situation now then we did then.

This is crucial. It is impossible to misuse religion; it is possible to misuse a particular fixed doctrine, but religion is whatever one wants it to be.

No it isn't...

But you aren't referring to the misuse of science - you are referring to the derivation of inappropriate - as you see it - conclusions from scientific data.

Not really. It's about considering things as scientific data that aren't as well, and about whole areas where science shouldn't be considered relevant.

The whole concept of science vs religion is bizarre in that regard--the implication that science is more than a minor method that is mostly about being useful.

You don't believe your moral compass is rational and logically coherent or consistent? I've never heard that one before. Unusual. Does that explain your strange beliefs? :uhoh:

eh...your moral beliefs are rational and consistent? That's not good.

You would have to simplify, distort, twist, overreach, and place too much stock in principles for that to be the case. And how do you decide on the premises you take as true anyway?

They presumably try to investigate particular aspects of the courtship ritual. What's wrong with that? Ethology can be applied to humans just as well as to chimps...

Yes...yes indeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbrGgiJCt5c

Ironside

10-22-2012, 21:06

Defense can be a good method of offense.

When your enemy's enemy isn't your friend, pick your battles carefully. Results of victory may vary.

Some people need to feel like their moral compass is rational and logically cohesive, and can't comprehend anything else. You don't think this is bad, it's something you'd praise about a moral compass?
I was refering to those who say that atheists can't be moral because any ethics they come up with doesn't have a divine mandate. The reverse attacks what they find as silly supersticions, but treat the ethics as a seperate issue.

I wouldn't say that science has done that, it's more like a secular culture that need not have existed at the same time as secular advances. But I'm not talking about loss of religion in slums.

Religious people have adjusted and changed their beliefs practically continuously, for all they are accused of being dogmatic. God and inspiration have usually been seen as a higher authority than bible doctrine--when you bring up the different sects you support that.

The bible was used to justify slavery, as was science, but it was largely evangelism that ended slavery (in the us/uk).

It's rather a consequence of the church having the highest authority on natural science for a very long time. Now the problem with bringing the old religions back on a massive scale is that it's not consitant enough to sustain without massive indoctrination, obfuscation and suppression nowadays. And you still will have faithless people. Yay!!
See, saying this is bad is a call for introspection, which is somewhat built in the system in the case of science. Saying anything more needs to give a practical alternative.

If you want to justify a vice, it's easy to rationalize or misuse science. You can take some theory as true, or some absurd premise as true, and be confident that you have built logically on top of that. People who want to justify vice don't usually become satanists.
Some do become satanists, some use the Bible. See point above, any system is easy to misuse.

Moral and other big questions are usually deeply passionate. But science is supposed to be dispassionate. To science nothing is sacred. But imagine a moral philosophy which didn't consider human life to be sacred.
Not familiar with any religion outside Christianity I take it? Human sacrifice, the Bible dumped that but have God doing and demanding genocides, Hinduism etc, etc. Man that was hard to imagine. Yes, the ethics has improved, but that's not something religion can celebrate (Christianity has been better than most on this matter though).
Science is a tool. Moral philosophy is moral philosophy. You can use the tool to help your moral philosophy, but that's about it.

It will only be helpful if it's right. And if there isn't widespread comprehension, how will the truth spread over society?

Using science or a data driven approach to find the answer to the big questions doesn't work. Neither does the overly rational and logical approach. As an analogy, think of the people who try to use science or logic to figure out something social like dating.

That's a nice one. Science and logic are not anywhere close to replace the real thing, but it'll help to filter out wich one of the tips you picked up from media, family and friends that's actually useful (and that's not counting that those tips are science in a broader way, since it's data gatering). There's thousands of situations that you might experience or not, where science can be a helpful starting point. There's also many situations were you'll have to pick the girl without dating them first, so to speak. How does Sasaki do it then?

If it's very difficult to truly grasp the big questions then we should avoid everything that tends to fool us into thinking we have the answers. It's absurd to pick out creationists as a special kind of dogmatic and then (essentially) praise college kids going off of what their professor tells them about the latest psychology study.
Because coming up with the idea 200 years ago, that a 2000-year old book should be taken as the literal truth (except when it doesn't), sounds reasonable? And the main difference is yet this: According to the principles of science, the college kid is doing it wrong if he's taking the latest scientific study as gospel. According to the principles of "science" based from fundamentalism, the college kid is doing it perfectly correct if he's taking creationism as gospel.

I don't know how it is in Sweden, but in America the people who don't go off of tradition or religion simply turn to some other authority--they are the ones who quote from newspapers admiringly, who speak the names of 20th century philosophers and artists reverently, the ones who say "studies show that people...".

Interesting, that might actually be a discussion difference if that's common in the US. Authority refencing isn't that common here, unless it's really needed.

Anyway:
Tradition: ...Right, the big questions, we solved those ages ago, the answer was... Look a big wizard in the sky! "Runs away."
Religion: We've been thinking about this a lot and the answer is... The big wizard in the sky did it, using diamonds!
Science: The big wizard in the sky holds all the answers? Amazing! Do we have any real, useful data on him? No? Booring! Wake me up when you do.
Scientists: It would be really cool to know all the answers that the big wizard in the sky is supposed to know. Let's try! Even if we fail we might learn something.
"Moral" philosopher: The big wizard doesn't exist so we can make up what we want.
Moral philosopher: Let's try to generalize the best ideas the big wizard is supposed to have, mix it and see if we can get a better standard.

There are no clear answers on the big questions, that's part of why they're big. And any tool is flawed. But more information is always helpful and in sometimes it can even give an almost full answer.

Montmorency

10-22-2012, 21:09

No it isn't...

I'll clarify: I mentioned doctrine, which is basically most organized religion. It can be misused in both senses of the word: misapplied and mispurposed. Science - the scientific method - can be both misapplied and mispurposed as well. Personal religion, or spirituality, however, can not be misapplied - it is too nebulous and idiosyncratic.

Not really. It's about considering things as scientific data that aren't as well, and about whole areas where science shouldn't be considered relevant.

The whole concept of science vs religion is bizarre in that regard--the implication that science is more than a minor method that is mostly about being useful.

Why should religion be granted more prestige or authority?

I find it strange that you so easily ignore all the great ethical dilemmas generated by the fruits of science.

eh...your moral beliefs are rational and consistent? That's not good.

Your moral beliefs are not consistent? They seem consistent to me. You seem to be applying rational principles, or what is usually deemed rational: "This is harmful, so I should attempt to mitigate its expression."

I think you have everything backwards from the usual manner.

too much stock in principles for that to be the case.

'Presidential debates are not about facts, they're about principles'. You evidently hold many principles. What are you on about?

You would have to simplify, distort, twist, overreach

Can you give an example?

And how do you decide on the premises you take as true anyway?

How do you? You're the biggest moralist in the forum!

Sasaki Kojiro

10-22-2012, 22:35

That's a nice one. Science and logic are not anywhere close to replace the real thing, but it'll help to filter out wich one of the tips you picked up from media, family and friends that's actually useful (and that's not counting that those tips are science in a broader way, since it's data gatering). There's thousands of situations that you might experience or not, where science can be a helpful starting point. There's also many situations were you'll have to pick the girl without dating them first, so to speak. How does Sasaki do it then?

Science is good because it helps you filter out all the bad science? That's an argument for understanding science and statistics and how psychological studies are done, sure. But not an argument in favor of the studies themselves.

Because coming up with the idea 200 years ago, that a 2000-year old book should be taken as the literal truth (except when it doesn't), sounds reasonable? And the main difference is yet this: According to the principles of science, the college kid is doing it wrong if he's taking the latest scientific study as gospel. According to the principles of "science" based from fundamentalism, the college kid is doing it perfectly correct if he's taking creationism as gospel.

This is great for, say, chemistry. But if you are going the "big questions", it is no longer significant praise of the principles of science to say that according to them the college kid is doing it wrong if he's taking the latest study as gospel. Because in that case, according to the principles of science, we should limit our beliefs in accordance with the scientific evidence--and therefore, if we lack scientific evidence that something is good or bad we should not venture too far in saying it is. This mindset often leads straight to naturalism--"people naturally do x, so what we say about it is that it's not really bad".

In other words, the only reason the principles of science are so inherently undogmatic is because science should rightfully be limited to a small area.

Needless to say, scientists and religious people have similar attitudes towards people who accept as gospel certain moral principles that they think are true and important.

Anyway:
Tradition: ...Right, the big questions, we solved those ages ago, the answer was... Look a big wizard in the sky! "Runs away."
Religion: We've been thinking about this a lot and the answer is... The big wizard in the sky did it, using diamonds!
Science: The big wizard in the sky holds all the answers? Amazing! Do we have any real, useful data on him? No? Booring! Wake me up when you do.
Scientists: It would be really cool to know all the answers that the big wizard in the sky is supposed to know. Let's try! Even if we fail we might learn something.
"Moral" philosopher: The big wizard doesn't exist so we can make up what we want.
Moral philosopher: Let's try to generalize the best ideas the big wizard is supposed to have, mix it and see if we can get a better standard.

???

I think it's really hard to summarize these things and not be goofy but can't we do better than that?

Tradition: old people have had more time on this earth, they have seen and experienced more...I remember being dumb when I was younger, I know better about stuff now, I expect to mature as I get older, so I expect some old people to be smarter than me...things that generation after generation have supported have some truth in them

Religion: I feel this strongly by intuition, I had an epiphany, the world is a beautiful place/the sun god will kill us all oh ****, I feel physical disgust when people are dishonest/eat random innocuous foods sometimes even though no harm comes to it, some people are more like animals and that's bad, some people seem somehow pure and more divine, we should emulate them and respect them/build giant statues made of gold in their honor

Scientists: this herb does seem to help cure this disease, but there is nothing in it that has that effect, it is peoples belief in the herb that cures them. Therefore irrational beliefs can be good. But perhaps if we experiment with other herbs we will find one that works better

Good moral philosopher: After much experience of life and thinking and learning from others I have come to understand some things, which I will try to express in a way that will hopefully be helpful to others, perhaps by writing them down in the form of letters to my nephew

Rationalist moral philosopher: When asked whether they would divert a trolley that was on track to kill 5 people on to a track that would only kill one person, most people said that they would divert the trolley, thus showing that they have at least some support for utilitarianism. However, they refuse to consider chucking a fat guy in front of the trolley to divert it. The masses (unlike we moral philosophers) are inconsistent and confused in their moral thinking

"Continental" moral philosopher: This other philosophy is too boring, I don't want to be a boring person, so I will express things in an exciting way with lots of flourishes and work real hard to make it kind of obscure so that people can't figure out exactly what I'm saying and then see how wacky it is

There are no clear answers on the big questions, that's part of why they're big. And any tool is flawed. But more information is always helpful and in sometimes it can even give an almost full answer

Sometimes in psychology the randomly select a group of people and do something experimental and analyze the results.

Other times they do case studies and just try to understand people...similar to how we do things in our regular lives. If you don't respect the first, but respect the second which you still think of as science then we don't disagree in this regard...

I'll clarify: I mentioned doctrine, which is basically most organized religion. It can be misused in both senses of the word: misapplied and mispurposed. Science - the scientific method - can be both misapplied and mispurposed as well. Personal religion, or spirituality, however, can not be misapplied - it is too nebulous and idiosyncratic.

Ok, I agree, and I think I talked about this in my 2nd bit above to ironside.

But I also think that people have personal religions that we can see will not lost given other realities about the world and their personality.

Why should religion be granted more prestige or authority?

It shouldn't. But we should understand that we cannot take passion and emotion out of our thinking about moral questions. When we understand that, religion is changed from something to be scorned to something that is interesting.

I find it strange that you so easily ignore all the great ethical dilemmas generated by the fruits of science.

I said that some new philosophy is needed as the world changes. But I'm curious what you mean here. Gattaca type stuff?

Your moral beliefs are not consistent? They seem consistent to me. You seem to be applying rational principles, or what is usually deemed rational: "This is harmful, so I should attempt to mitigate its expression."

They aren't consistent.

This is like saying my social beliefs are consistent because I generally interact with people the same way and thinking I must be applying rational principles therefore. But if I actually tried to state any rational social principles I had I would come up with something that wasn't true or that was trivially true.

I think you have everything backwards from the usual manner.

backwards is forwards as we would know if we didn't bow down before the dogmatic authority of linguists

'Presidential debates are not about facts, they're about principles'. You evidently hold many principles. What are you on about?

Well, let's say Mitt Romney has a principle that "america shouldn't apologize for her values". The debate would be about that more than about specifics. But my pointing that out doesn't mean I have much respect for taking that principle as a starting point.

I don't object entirely to attempts to take a stab at explaining something by stating a principle. But principles are usually considered to be more than that-- "I'm a principled person" etc.

Can you give an example?

Lying and honesty...but I'm not sure what to say if you can't see how complicated moral judgments are in that regard. What's the definition of lying? Many people disagree. How do you judge how bad it is that someone said something untrue? There's a lot going on.

Philosophical debates on the subject are usually either simplistic and wrong or absurdly laborious.

How do you? You're the biggest moralist in the forum!

I don't decide on premises. I'm influenced by what I see, read, hear, etc and my thoughts about it and my attempts to express it. Then when I come into contact with a situation I react to it in a way that relates to my previous experiences/thoughts/feelings. So does everyone by the way, it's just that some people have intuitions but also notice that the situation matches up to a principle they heard of, and go by that principle.

Which is not necessarily bad--in fact the real point of having cut and dry moral principles like that is to counter weakness and vice that will otherwise have much more wriggle room. But that's another issue.

If I'm the biggest moralist it's because I treat a disgusted reaction I have to something as morally significant, and say something, instead of asking myself whether "the harm principle" is involved or whatever...

****************

Anyway, going back the OP and the different reactions people have to creationists.

Let's say that you were someone who believed in a fairly moderate view of abortion. First trimester, or something. And it was clear to you that there was no way that first trimester abortion was going to be made illegal in your country. But, there was a strong movement in favor of "until birth", and the arguments and mindset of the people arguing for it gave you no reason to believe that these people wouldn't extend their support to infanticide. And lets say these people often avoided making a decent and comprehensive case for their own belief and mocked the position of the "life begins at conception" religious believers instead. Wouldn't you be put off by them doing that?

That doesn't describe me in the case of abortion, but you understand if its expanded to a general disagreement, yes?

Montmorency

10-22-2012, 23:06

backwards is forwards as we would know if we didn't bow down before the dogmatic authority of linguists

Pass the bong, Jimmy.

Gattaca type stuff?

Think back to the neuroscience crypticism. I believe we covered Gattaca in another thread.

as the world changes

Evolution, auto-evolution, etc. It's not just the world that is changing.

They aren't consistent.

This is like saying my social beliefs are consistent because I generally interact with people the same way and thinking I must be applying rational principles therefore. But if I actually tried to state any rational social principles I had I would come up with something that wasn't true or that was trivially true.

I don't decide on premises. I'm influenced by what I see, read, hear, etc and my thoughts about it and my attempts to express it. Then when I come into contact with a situation I react to it in a way that relates to my previous experiences/thoughts/feelings. So does everyone by the way, it's just that some people have intuitions but also notice that the situation matches up to a principle they heard of, and go by that principle.

Well, that technically is a principle. Not a moral principle, perhaps, but a behavioral one. It's certainly a broadly consistent behavioral pattern.

But, there was a strong movement in favor of "until birth", and the arguments and mindset of the people arguing for it gave you no reason to believe that these people wouldn't extend their support to infanticide. And lets say these people often avoided making a decent and comprehensive case for their own belief and mocked the position of the "life begins at conception" religious believers instead. Wouldn't you be put off by them doing that?

The opposite is fairly common. But the "extend their support to infanticide" bit is redundant, as 3rd-trimester abortion would already be infanticide to such an individual.

Papewaio

10-23-2012, 00:32

Entropy not linguistics determines that backwards does not always equal forwards.

It helps with the historical narrative that entropy makes reversing nigh on impossible.

Now the assumption is that religion is more moral then no religion.

I would contend that literacy has a greater impact on human rights then any particular religion.

200 years ago as England tipped the 50% literacy rate the age of Enlightenment was stirring in the Western world.

Christainty had an 1800 year head start to get rid of slavery, imbue equal rights to woman and a host of other rights. It wasn't religion of any sort it was widespread literacy that improved humanity. The printing press, books, newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, google, Facebook and Twitter... Literacy and communication has tamed the wild beasts that are us humans.

Thousands of years of slavery, child abuse , inequality, animal abuse, torture and murder. Not stopped by religion of any form, instead held at bay by the ability to read and write about our fellow man.

Strike For The South

10-23-2012, 02:31

Papewaio

10-23-2012, 02:44

Statistics say otherwise.

Even rolling in the world wars a 20th century human has less chance of dying by murder then one in the 19th century. Go back eight hundred years and the chance of such murder goes down by an order of magnitude.

Progress is pretty easy to point to when the sheer number of retired people is so large that the western economies are barely able to cope with such an unprecedented number of people living so long.

Show me a Roman Emperor who ate chocolate, drank coffee, ate pizza, flew in an airplane, used the Internet, had access to antibiotics. Then you might have a point that there is no progress.

Strike For The South

10-23-2012, 02:54

I didn't say there wasn't any

I said it was an illusion

ICantSpellDawg

10-23-2012, 05:32

I didn't say there wasn't any

I said it was an illusion

Nonsense, c'mon. It is an objective fact that time progresses and new technology is discovered that provides new potential for the human race. Are you a surrealist now? I disagree with Pape's assertions, but not that there has been objective progress that is not illusory unless everything is.

Ironside

10-23-2012, 10:29

Science is good because it helps you filter out all the bad science? That's an argument for understanding science and statistics and how psychological studies are done, sure. But not an argument in favor of the studies themselves.
Nah, alternatives are making theories by yourself (hardwired popular, but leads often wrong), go only on your own experience (insufficient), or going by "common sense", which can be summarized as all the experience you've picked up. So it's usually the best by those options, but since you have media with its false data and insufficient data from friends and family, you'll need something more as well.

Ever done a good psychology test (there's planty of bad ones though)? It'll go something like this on the points: Lol totally wrong. Wrong, but I can see how you got there. Correctish. So true. Man, I would never have come up with it, but everyone agrees it's an excellent fit, including me in retrospect. The last part is really hard to get otherwise.

This is great for, say, chemistry. But if you are going the "big questions", it is no longer significant praise of the principles of science to say that according to them the college kid is doing it wrong if he's taking the latest study as gospel. Because in that case, according to the principles of science, we should limit our beliefs in accordance with the scientific evidence--and therefore, if we lack scientific evidence that something is good or bad we should not venture too far in saying it is. This mindset often leads straight to naturalism--"people naturally do x, so what we say about it is that it's not really bad".

In other words, the only reason the principles of science are so inherently undogmatic is because science should rightfully be limited to a small area.

Needless to say, scientists and religious people have similar attitudes towards people who accept as gospel certain moral principles that they think are true and important.

You're not familiar with advanced chemistry and biochemistry I take it? Those got areas worse than social science when it comes to vagueness. Statistics are the only thing that works, maybe.

I'm going to put it this way. Have some of the big questions changed because of science? Yes, well rather thanks of the knowledge gathered by science. If that's the case, what does rejecting science tells us?

???

I think it's really hard to summarize these things and not be goofy but can't we do better than that?

It was probably a bit missed when I went on with the goofy list, but the original point was that traditions don't really have an answer to the big questions, they rather fumbled together something and since it's traditions, that's how it works.

Religion are dealing with the big questions, but often falls back to that the gods did it. And since the gods did it according to my interpretation, I'm really right on the matter.

So no method is really equiped for it, partially because some depends on your values and people will have different values.
Will that authority searching person change with any system? No, so why bother picking him up as science is bad? He would be as bad in the other systems as well.

Sometimes in psychology the randomly select a group of people and do something experimental and analyze the results.

Other times they do case studies and just try to understand people...similar to how we do things in our regular lives. If you don't respect the first, but respect the second which you still think of as science then we don't disagree in this regard...

Both are useful. The first is good for extreme situations and to understand single or a few factors, the second one provides interactions and context. Take neurology for example, without shutting down braincenters, you'll never understand how they work and are linked together, yet on a normal person they're all (somewhat) functional. This have a massive influence in understanding human psychology.

Let's say that you were someone who believed in a fairly moderate view of abortion. First trimester, or something. And it was clear to you that there was no way that first trimester abortion was going to be made illegal in your country. But, there was a strong movement in favor of "until birth", and the arguments and mindset of the people arguing for it gave you no reason to believe that these people wouldn't extend their support to infanticide. And lets say these people often avoided making a decent and comprehensive case for their own belief and mocked the position of the "life begins at conception" religious believers instead. Wouldn't you be put off by them doing that?

In your example, you're allying yourself with the "abortion after conception is murder and deserves the death penalty"-crowd. Pick your battles.

Pape, while I agree that literacy and communication certainly have helped, it's a multitude of factors behind the lesser violence.

Papewaio

10-23-2012, 21:38

Multitude of factors, yes. Very very much so. Other factors include wealth, distribution of it, lifespan and of course general education.

The decrease in violence is closely linked to increase in communications that includes better roads, healthier livestock which until a hundred years ago was the main powered transport, libraries, monasteries, universities, scholars and teachers. Which in themselves are an increase in social wealth and infrastructure.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-23-2012, 22:50

Kralizec

10-23-2012, 23:45

Montmorency

10-23-2012, 23:52

Well, this one is well-known: interfering with the activity of certain brain regions by means of magnetic fields causes a temporary change in how those affected approach and respond to moral dilemmas - to put it simply. It's part of a larger subset of behavioral changes that can be produced via transcranial magnetic stimulation. I'd love to see how you would react to such a treatment. :sneaky:

We can dial it up from there if you think this one's trivial?

As someone who conceives of moral perception as stemming from the sum of one's own experiences, shouldn't you be interested in what neuroscience can tell us about how decisions and thoughts with respect to morality are represented in the brain?

HoreTore

10-24-2012, 00:26

So,

1) What are the basic science advances that have changed our view of the big questions, and which questions?
2) What are some psychology studies that really show us things we couldn't have known otherwise on the important topics? Treating the abnormal, understanding sensation/perception, and medical therapeutical stuff is a different category.
3) Same as 2, but for the neuroscience, brain imaging type studies

The stuff I've read about falls into three categories: 1) wrong, 2) not really important, 3) laborious and questionable support for something that you will likely come across in the course of a humanities education, which psychologists don't have

But obviously I quit looking into it at a certain point.

We know that science and reason can work well destructively, in pointing out flaws and impossibilities, and this can open peoples eyes. But we are talking here about a direct advance.

I can start out with my own profession, education:

1. Piaget's theory of cognitive development.
2. Vygotsky's zones(I'm sorry to say I don't know the english term for his theory, and the norwegian one won't help you).
3. Jerome Bruner showed how language is learned.
4. John Dewey's "learning by doing", and much more.

All four are, among other things, psychologist, and reached their insights through the scientific method, not by looking in old books written a thousand years ago or through "common sense" alone.

And now, with the advent of neuroscience, our knowledge has expanded even further.

Tellos Athenaios

10-24-2012, 00:30

1) What are the basic science advances that have changed our view of the big questions, and which questions?

Advances in measuring time, through advances in physics, have lead us to redefine length in terms of time (and speed of light) as opposed to being a "distinct" type of domain. That is we do not define speed in terms of distance over delta in time, but we define length in terms of a constant speed (of light) times a particular delta of time! So how tall are you is now officially defined in terms of how long would it take light in a vacuum to travel from top to toes?

Advances in physics in general have had striking implications for our day to day lives, including the questions "what are we made of?" and "where do we come from?"

2) What are some psychology studies that really show us things we couldn't have known otherwise on the important topics? Treating the abnormal, understanding sensation/perception, and medical therapeutical stuff is a different category.

Herd mentality type things. Mass psychology is key to designing safe buildings and vessels, to building user friendly and desirable products, or effective marketing (people don't like going back for seconds so you make more by selling larger portions up front, for instance). Also it turns out that people are terrible with quantities: one, two, three, more, many is roughly what the average Joe can deal with. Questions like "which is bigger: 10^6 or 2^19?" are very hard to do correctly.

3) Same as 2, but for the neuroscience, brain imaging type studies

How the brain works, of course; and by extension how we might aid people with e.g. Alzheimer's to remain mentally able for as long as possible and correctly diagnosing brain damage. Additionally study of the brain also has application in information science, AI, and CS (algorithms, neural networks, distributed systems). Understanding our brain's response to audio and visual input can help us design places which are more "friendly"/"soothing" on the nerves.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 00:33

By your own admission, you're not a creationist. I assume you "believe" in the standard scientific view of self-replicating molecules being generated by chance and evolving into life forms that are more recognisable to us. I can understand why someone wouldn't really care about the evolution/creationism controversy, but I can't for the love of god understand why you take the side of the creationists.

Like I said--it's as if I'm defending a "life begins at conception" person (who I'm confidant is not going to effect change in our country) vs some people I have profound disagreements with. In other countries, the creationist types are much more of a problem.

An unfortunate side effect of the left's hero worship of famous progressives of the past is that they want the world to face the same problems so that they can be just as heroic--that's how you end up with people accusing others of racism left and right and occupy wall street protesters singing civil rights tunes.

The real world has moved on.

Science literally means "knowledge". There's also something called "the scientific method" as advanced by Popper foremost (allthough he was probably too dismissive of inductive reasoning). Defined in it's simplest terms, I can't think of any rational reason why people would oppose either.

I'm getting the impression that you have a warped view of what Humanities is. Psychology is part of it, by the way. With the possible exception of religious studies, they're all sciences that concern themselves with the human mind and it's products. Religious studies can be scientific provided that they follow an empirical setup, but a strictly theological study (i.e. reasoning from religious premises) isn't. In any case the humanities are irrelevant when we're dealing with subjects that fall out of the scope of human society, such as the origin of life which goes beyond humans.

Let's say you have a piece of music. If you listen to it, that's observation, and will result in you knowing things about it. Simply doing that and then trying to express what you think is part of the humanities. Trying to go beyond that, doing brain scans of people listening to music, coming up with theories about different tones and how the effect mood, testing those theories, etc, that's science. Make sense?

1 - I interpret this as "which scientific advances led to a drastic change in which humans see things". Evolution is an obvious one. Other ones include metereology and seismology, which have shown us that natural disasters really aren't Acts of God, or at least provided a natural explanation we can understand and believe. The discovery of the atom and molecule debunked the whole ancient concept of "elements" as conceived by Greek philosophers.
Or an example that's relevant to pretty much everyone: historically many children died in shortly after birth, and the parents would ask "why, God, why?". The local priest would likely mutter something along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways we can't comprehend, also she's in a better place now". By inductive reasoning people discovered that if midwives and doctors washed their hands before assisting in childbirth, the fatalities dropped enormously. Later on we discovered that microbes were responsible for most diseases. I would not dismiss the priest's words as useless, because they serve a real social purpose, but they're not much help in answering the "big questions that really matter"

Yes, we know that science can have destructive ability. They can disprove a humanities kind of theory that people come up with. I'm just rather indifferent to this ability when it comes to what we're talking about. For one thing, it's much simpler to just avoid writing the kind of goofy humanities nonsense that silly professors come up with. For another, science in that capacity is hostile to all myth, and sometimes myths and stories are the means by which someone has grasped at an important truth. Third, often it's merely a weapon in the hands of people who don't have any better ideas, or who have worse ideas, which they are able to make immune to attack by the best abilities of science at the time. Fourth, you still have to arrive at the important truths...

I don't think the question in your example is "Why did this happen?" by the way. It's "how do I deal with this". I've heard that people were simply less attached to their children until they reached a certain age back when infant deaths were common, don't know if it's true or not though. I'd be surprised if you think scientific knowledge has helped us deal with the death of a child though.

2 - a flawed question, I think. If you don't think treatment, understanding of sensation/perception or having an emperical understanding of why humans act the way they do is important, then the answer is invariably "there are none". I fail to see what other discipline could produce the same knowledge without becoming part of what we'd call "psychology" - since it's the study of the human mind.

3 - same as 2 really. I'll add that neuroscience has revealed that there are physical causes, instead of metaphysical reasons like a "it's the soul", that are responsible for how humans think and perceive things.

Treatment is important, sorry, I meant not important for what what we are disputing: the overreach of science. No one is saying that mystical medicine would be better--regardless of the excessive faith people have had in scientific medical studies.

So what do we know now that we believe in physical causes instead of metaphysical ones? That's the question I'm asking you guys.

Well, this one is well-known: interfering with the activity of certain brain regions by means of magnetic fields causes a temporary change in how those affected approach and respond to moral dilemmas - to put it simply. It's part of a larger subset of behavioral changes that can be produced via transcranial magnetic stimulation. I'd love to see how you would react to such a treatment.

We can dial it up from there if you think this one's trivial?

Well, I've never seen what's interesting about it. It sounds like a curiosity to me.

As someone who conceives of moral perception as stemming from the sum of one's own experiences, shouldn't you be interested in what neuroscience can tell us about how decisions and thoughts with respect to morality are represented in the brain?

I'm interested in personal, subjective knowledge of how decisions and thoughts with respect to morality occur. Just like I'm interested in my own experience of listening to a piece of music and not reading an article about the effect of heavy bass on the neural system. I'm not interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake here.

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 00:52

The real world has moved on.

How did you come to be possessed of such an uncommon and piercing insight?

Make sense?

Neuroscience would tell us far more about that experience than the humanities could.

So what do we know now that we believe in physical causes instead of metaphysical ones?

There is evidence for physical causes, to put it simply.

Fourth, you still have to arrive at the important truths...

Why, and how do you know your method is the most appropriate?

Well, I've never seen what's interesting about it. It sounds like a curiosity to me.

Seriously?

I'm not interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake here.

That's with magnetic fields, and is temporary.

We now have the ability to semi-invasively target specific neural circuits and activate or deactivate them, using the installed genetic expression of neuronal structures sensitive to predetermined stimuli. As we understand more of the brain cell classes and their functions, we will learn more of how neural circuits operate, how they interact with other neural circuits to produce complex behaviors - enduce a subject to pull a lever over and over again through neural manipulation -, sensation - switch pain processing with pleasure processing and cause the subject to cut itself with a knife voluntarily - and abstract attributes - including thought, belief, memory, value, consciousness, etc. We would be able to directly and permanently manipulate these thing, even to specification.

This is being done now, at the level of behavioral patterns, with small mammals. How many years before we move up to the hominids? You can't see the implications, or possible applications, of all this?

I'm interested in personal, subjective knowledge of how decisions and thoughts with respect to morality occur.

Trivial.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 00:54

I can start out with my own profession, education:

1. Piaget's theory of cognitive development.
2. Vygotsky's zones(I'm sorry to say I don't know the english term for his theory, and the norwegian one won't help you).
3. Jerome Bruner showed how language is learned.
4. John Dewey's "learning by doing", and much more.

Thanks, I forgot all about this stuff. But I think it's in the same category as therapy. Children and people with mental illnesses are outside the normal humanities because we can't remember/don't know what it's like to be them. Scientific study is a very important assist to normal methods in both education and therapy.

Advances in measuring time, through advances in physics, have lead us to redefine length in terms of time (and speed of light) as opposed to being a "distinct" type of domain. That is we do not define speed in terms of distance over delta in time, but we define length in terms of a constant speed (of light) times a particular delta of time! So how tall are you is now officially defined in terms of how long would it take light in a vacuum to travel from top to toes?

Advances in physics in general have had striking implications for our day to day lives, including the questions "what are we made of?" and "where do we come from?"

This makes me curious...I don't find those questions interesting or significant, what do you see in them?

Herd mentality type things. Mass psychology is key to designing safe buildings and vessels, to building user friendly and desirable products, or effective marketing (people don't like going back for seconds so you make more by selling larger portions up front, for instance). Also it turns out that people are terrible with quantities: one, two, three, more, many is roughly what the average Joe can deal with. Questions like "which is bigger: 10^6 or 2^19?" are very hard to do correctly.

How the brain works, of course; and by extension how we might aid people with e.g. Alzheimer's to remain mentally able for as long as possible and correctly diagnosing brain damage. Additionally study of the brain also has application in information science, AI, and CS (algorithms, neural networks, distributed systems). Understanding our brain's response to audio and visual input can help us design places which are more "friendly"/"soothing" on the nerves.

I think people have had a pretty good understanding of mass psychology, difficulty with large numbers, and what made a building look nice before science. These benefits you describe are technological improvements or of simply utilitarian value. I'm not knocking technology, utility, better education, better medicine, etc etc...far from it...but this is exactly what I mean, we all know that there are so many improvements in our world due to science that we try to apply the method in areas where we should not apply it.

Are you praising science for making marketing more insidious by the way? :creep:

************

I will say that after considering it I think you guys may be right in part--I'm probably undervaluing the destructive ability of science and reason, and the more rigorous ethos those can produce in some people. That would make an interesting historical question that I can't really answer.

That's with magnetic fields, and is temporary.

We now have the ability to semi-invasively target specific neural circuits and activate or deactivate them, using the installed genetic expression of neuronal structures sensitive to predetermined stimuli. As we understand more of the brain cell classes and their functions, we will learn more of how neural circuits operate, how they interact with other neural circuits to produce complex behaviors - enduce a subject to pull a lever over and over again through neural manipulation -, sensation - switch pain processing with pleasure processing and cause the subject to cut itself with a knife voluntarily - and abstract attributes - including thought, belief, memory, value, consciousness, etc. We would be able to directly and permanently manipulate these thing, even to specification.

This is being done now, at the level of behavioral patterns, with small mammals. How many years before we move up to the hominids? You can't see the implications, or possible applications, of all this?

So you are thinking about, say, giving someone endless willpower through technological manipulation? What should they do with that willpower? Should they choose willpower over endless contentment?

This is science fiction at the moment anyway

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 01:00

I think people have had a pretty good understanding of mass psychology

One of the major findings of cognitive psychology is that popular understandings of psychology and brain function are crap. This "common sense" approach is actually useless and wrong.

Here's another one: you can't see how any of this matters a whit. You go apenuts over animal rightists and science lovers. These are your values. Yet what happens when there is damage to brain areas responsible for value?

Decision-making becomes near-impossible. Because internal representations of value drive pretty much all voluntary action, the loss of these curtails voluntary action. If going to work is no more valuable - food on the table is no more valuable - than the next thing, how could you pursue it? Certainly logic is only useful for such individuals in coming to a decision abstractly - not practically. What does this show? That certain 'butthole' economists are spot on when they say that value is all in the head.

And you question the usefulness of a neurological approach to this?

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 01:03

So you are thinking about, say, giving someone endless willpower through technological manipulation? What should they do with that willpower? Should they choose willpower over endless contentment?

This is science fiction at the moment anyway

Wait, what? That's the application you came up with? Really?

This is science fiction like flying cars are science fiction...

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 01:07

One of the major findings of cognitive psychology is that popular understandings of psychology and brain function are crap. This "common sense" approach is actually useless and wrong.

I'm not arguing for common sense. Strange caricature on your part. Eric Hoffer's "the true believer" is pretty good though.

Did you need the the cognitive psychology studies to see that humanity is difficult to just understand and that many people have false ideas? That's something many people have seen without studies. I wouldn't characterize it as a finding.

Here's another one: you can't see how any of this matters a whit. You go apenuts over animal rightists and science lovers. These are your values. Yet what happens when there is damage to brain areas responsible for value?

Decision-making becomes near-impossible. Because internal representations of value drive pretty much all voluntary action, the loss of these curtails voluntary action. If going to work is no more valuable - food on the table is no more valuable - than the next thing, how could you pursue it? Certainly logic is only useful for such individuals in coming to a decision abstractly - not practically. What does this show? That certain 'butthole' economists are spot on when they say that value is all in the head.

And you question the usefulness of a neurological approach to this?

Well, what is the usefulness of the neurological approach?

Everyone knows that simply drinking enough can change your values, and that there are unusual people who have starkly different values.

Wait, what? That's the application you came up with? Really?

This is science fiction like flying cars are science fiction...

Sorry, I was guessing at what you were getting at.

Tellos Athenaios

10-24-2012, 01:19

This makes me curious...I don't find those questions interesting or significant, what do you see in them?

Only the basis of pretty much all meta physics.

I think people have had a pretty good understanding of mass psychology, difficulty with large numbers, and what made a building look nice before science. Nope, they didn't. Mass psychology and difficulty with things like large numbers are not about "people will trample on each other in a bid to get out first when the building is on fire", or "doing sums is hard". It is about appreciating the consequences of that, specifically why certain designs work well even when everyone is a blind panic and why others don't. It also explains why people will frequently behave in a manner that goes against their own self interest, which has important application in economics for instance.

These benefits you describe are technological improvements or of simply utilitarian value. I'm not knocking technology, utility, better education, better medicine, etc etc...far from it...but this is exactly what I mean, we all know that there are so many improvements in our world due to science that we try to apply the method in areas where we should not apply it.

Well it is not so much about the improvements themselves (although that is what you asked for) but rather the implication: science brings us improvements in our understanding no matter the subject.

Are you praising science for making marketing more insidious by the way? :creep:

On the one hand, yes, but on the other hand it also allows us to understand when marketing needs to be reigned in or to communicate more effectively...

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 01:22

Did you need the the cognitive psychology studies to see that humanity is difficult to just understand and that many people have false ideas? That's something many people have seen without studies. I wouldn't characterize it as a finding.

Can common sense direct us to the neural activity responsible for "false ideas" (I assume you mean the cognitive biases here) - that is, the source of it? All common sense can do is "X is dumb and wrong and I, as well as all the people I like, are meritous for seeing that". That's really it.

Sorry, I was guessing at what you were getting at.

I wasn't getting at any one implication, though I would think you would perceive the 'dangerous' and probably (?) current sci-fi application of centrally controlled or centrally programmed government agents - with kill-switches, to boot (think deactivating all neural activity). Also consider this in tandem with the possibility of taking any human cell, converting it into a stem cell, and then growing that stem cell into an exact replica of the original owner - also in early stages of operation, today.

Well, what is the usefulness of the neurological approach?

Where is value, and how can it be manipulated at the source? As I was explicitly describing...

Everyone knows that simply drinking enough can change your values

Does it really change values, or does it simply lower inhibitions by inhibiting higher-order function responsible for it? Common sense can't answer this at all.

I'm not arguing for common sense.

Then what are you arguing for? 'Popular sense'? Tradition-al sense?? By any other name...

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 01:46

Only the basis of pretty much all meta physics.

And what do you see in that? What does having as a basis the fact of physicalism or whatever it's called imply for the important stuff?

Nope, they didn't. Mass psychology and difficulty with things like large numbers are not about "people will trample on each other in a bid to get out first when the building is on fire", or "doing sums is hard". It is about appreciating the consequences of that, specifically why certain designs work well even when everyone is a blind panic and why others don't. It also explains why people will frequently behave in a manner that goes against their own self interest, which has important application in economics for instance.

Building design, less fire deaths, very handy, yes.

Explaining why people go against their own self interest? That idea that people wouldn't was an absurd myth. How much has that been believed in history? Actually I'm not sure how strongly economists believed it, I've read that it was just a model that they understood was limited but that people expanded on. In other words, the perils of using science inappropriately again.

I don't think psychology studies have really done more than touch the surface on something as big on what people's self interest is and when and why they act against it. It's been written and thought about by many people though.

Well it is not so much about the improvements themselves (although that is what you asked for) but rather the implication: science brings us improvements in our understanding no matter the subject.

But that's what I was disputing--that science works well no matter the subject. Just because it works well on some questions doesn't mean it works well on others. So where has it worked well in the humanities type big questions? I know that's a vague description...

And I'm not objecting to case studies or observation...sometimes I feel like both sides are talking past each other here.

On the one hand, yes, but on the other hand it also allows us to understand when marketing needs to be reigned in or to communicate more effectively...

Solving problems it creates...

Can common sense direct us to the neural activity responsible for "false ideas" (I assume you mean the cognitive biases here) - that is, the source of it? All common sense can do is "X is dumb and wrong and I, as well as all the people I like, are meritous for seeing that". That's really it.

People can notice, retrospectively, that they had confirmation bias, even if they never called it that. And that experience is going to be worth more than reading a neuroscience study about it.

Although, it still won't be enough, it takes a lot more than understanding to improve on not having mental biases.

I wasn't getting at any one implication, though I would think you would perceive the 'dangerous' and probably (?) current sci-fi application of centrally controlled or centrally programmed government agents - with kill-switches, to boot (think deactivating all neural activity). Also consider this in tandem with the possibility of taking any human cell, converting it into a stem cell, and then growing that stem cell into an exact replica of the original owner - also in early stages of operation, today.

Where is value, and how can it be manipulated at the source? As I was explicitly describing...

We wouldn't need to waterboard people if we had this ability...

Does it really change values, or does it simply lower inhibitions by inhibiting higher-order function responsible for it? Common sense can't answer this at all.

Eh, it changes what you value at the moment like the transcranial thing does.

The effect of culture on values is more impressive. If you study history or anthropology you'll get a lot more interesting food for thought about values than in neuroscience I think. If you are curious about whether we overvalue compassion, wouldn't you look at history and at other cultures that have had a different approach to it and seen what it was like?

Then what are you arguing for? 'Popular sense'? Tradition-al sense?? By any other name...

The humanities, personal experience, observing and reacting to the world...not relying on things where you have to take someones word for it that their method arrives at the right answer. I don't know where you got common sense from. I was pretty explicit about praising scientific advances in medicine over old timey methods, right? It's just that in areas other than medicine etc I was criticizing science.

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 02:25

And that experience is going to be worth more than reading a neuroscience study about it.

Although, it still won't be enough, it takes a lot more than understanding to improve on not having mental biases.

Worth more in what sense? Towards what end? Toward getting past them? As it so happens, magnetic stimulation has been effected to temporarily deactivate several biases, such as optimism bias.

We wouldn't need to waterboard people if we had this ability...

Yes, sure, extracting information is a classic. How about taking two individuals and replacing one's memories and experiences with the other's, and vice versa. Wacky reality TV shenanigans ensue, right?

The effect of culture on values is more impressive. If you study history or anthropology you'll get a lot more interesting food for thought about values than in neuroscience I think. If you are curious about whether we overvalue compassion, wouldn't you look at history and at other cultures that have had a different approach to it and seen what it was like?

Sure, that sort of broad comparative analysis is difficult with neuroscience, unless tens of thousands of diverse individuals could be 'processed' at some point.

where you have to take someones word for it that their method arrives at the right answer.

So what's the use of the "great" philosopher besides for confirming what you already know? Perhaps you don't have the best answers? Perhaps your own experiences do not grant you any special insight? As I see it, to take your concept at face value would easily lead to the conclusion that each is wise in his or her own manner. Here, it just seems like a sort of tool for self-aggrandization. :shrug:

observing and reacting to the world

Careful, that's awfully close to...

I don't know where you got common sense from. I was pretty explicit about praising scientific advances in medicine over old timey methods, right? It's just that in areas other than medicine etc I was criticizing science.

You were saying something like, 'the conclusions and questions of cognitive science are all old hat and common sense', it seems to me.

How about, you're undervaluing the broad application of science to questions the humanities ask, particularly in their formulation and material basis? Surely philosophy without grounding in actual causal and material mechanisms is plain old wind-whistling: farting around. Consider whether you're not simply underestimating...say, what if one neuroscientist applied your "personal experience" approach? Would then the use of the neuroscience in unraveling what's behind the big questions be evident?

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 04:58

Worth more in what sense? Towards what end? Toward getting past them? As it so happens, magnetic stimulation has been effected to temporarily deactivate several biases, such as optimism bias.

Understanding, catching yourself when it's important, letting it go on when it's useful.

We aren't going to go around wearing magnets on our head fixing all our deficiencies

Sure, that sort of broad comparative analysis is difficult with neuroscience, unless tens of thousands of diverse individuals could be 'processed' at some point.

So what's the use of the "great" philosopher besides for confirming what you already know? Perhaps you don't have the best answers? Perhaps your own experiences do not grant you any special insight? As I see it, to take your concept at face value would easily lead to the conclusion that each is wise in his or her own manner. Here, it just seems like a sort of tool for self-aggrandization. :shrug:

???

You don't read philosophy and take their word for it, but you can still gain insight. And you just said studying history and other cultures is valuable. You can learn a lot from your own experiences...haven't you? But you can get a lot from other people too and from getting an education...everyone knows that...you're familiar with the concept of a humanities education, so I don't know why you keep talking about common sense and a "personal experience" approach...

You were saying something like, 'the conclusions and questions of cognitive science are all old hat and common sense', it seems to me.

No, I was asking for examples where the had something interesting to say about a big question, and disputed the examples offered

How about, you're undervaluing the broad application of science to questions the humanities ask, particularly in their formulation and material basis? Surely philosophy without grounding in actual causal and material mechanisms is plain old wind-whistling: farting around. Consider whether you're not simply underestimating...say, what if one neuroscientist applied your "personal experience" approach? Would then the use of the neuroscience in unraveling what's behind the big questions be evident?

How am I undervaluing it?

The impulse to have an objecting grounding, an inarguable foundation, is just what I was criticizing back in the beginning. It's the same with modern philosophers who work entirely within a logical or rationalistic framework. Starting with a "scientific grounding" and proceeding by strict logic is how people end up with utilitarianism.

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 05:27

You don't read philosophy and take their word for it, but you can still gain insight. And you just said studying history and other cultures is valuable. You can learn a lot from your own experiences...haven't you? But you can get a lot from other people too and from getting an education...everyone knows that...you're familiar with the concept of a humanities education, so I don't know why you keep talking about common sense and a "personal experience" approach...

I don't know, maybe I've got it wrong, but I feel like you're trying to wriggle out of your own ideas here.

The impulse to have an objecting grounding, an inarguable foundation, is just what I was criticizing back in the beginning. It's the same with modern philosophers who work entirely within a logical or rationalistic framework. Starting with a "scientific grounding" and proceeding by strict logic is how people end up with utilitarianism.

Where did I say any of that? Weren't we past it?

No, I was asking for examples where the had something interesting to say about a big question, and disputed the examples offered

...

After everything, you're telling me I don't understand your position. Yet I really feel like you're going back and forth between distinct formulations. Maybe it really is because you, as you claim, are irrational and inconsistent?

I'll list some propositions, and you should check off the ones that resonate with you:

1. Science is too logical to have bearing on issues of morality.
2. Issues of morality are the Big Questions.
3. Morality can not be logical, or rational, or coherent, or any other such word.
4. Morality must be derived from personal experience.
5. Psychology is common sense.
6. My morality is correct, and I can tell because I have strong feelings toward issues and my life experiences have been meaningful and instructive.
7. Second-hand experience is inferior to first-hand experience with respect to morality.
8. The humanities are valuable in studying the human condition.
8a. The humanities are more valuable in this regard than science.
9. The study of morality and the study of the human condition are inextricable.
10. The humanities are irrational, and do not operate on a logical or consistent basis but are rather totally personal.
11. Humans are disordered and inconsistent on every level.
11.a. Personal experience is irrational and therefore valuable.

And let's cut off there for now. I feel like there have to be crippling contradictions and semantic deficits in your ideology...

You should write up a Manifesto. I promise I'll push it on tourists in Times Square, while in the nude.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 07:32

I don't know, maybe I've got it wrong, but I feel like you're trying to wriggle out of your own ideas here.

Where did I say any of that? Weren't we past it?
...

After everything, you're telling me I don't understand your position. Yet I really feel like you're going back and forth between distinct formulations. Maybe it really is because you, as you claim, are irrational and inconsistent?

I'm confused about your objection as well.

2. Issues of morality are the Big Questions.
1. Science is too logical to have bearing on issues of morality.
3. Morality can not be logical, or rational, or coherent, or any other such word.

Some of the big questions are about morality. But morality is a broader topic than the people who think of it in terms of science and logic would say. They reject the religious view and do not have a good way of viewing the world to replace it when it comes to moral questions. They replace it with things like the harm principle, consent, and human rights.

4. Morality must be derived from personal experience.

Most important knowledge has its root in personal experience. The reason people misjudge other cultures is mainly from a lack of personal experience living in that culture. "walk a mile in their shoes" as they say.

5. Psychology is common sense.

Studies of normal people tend towards either the biological (sensation and perception) or the common sense or the better accessed through the humanities or the wrong.

6. My morality is correct, and I can tell because I have strong feelings toward issues and my life experiences have been meaningful and instructive.
7. Second-hand experience is inferior to first-hand experience with respect to morality.

People think that, it's not a terrible thought, but they aren't infallible.

Strong feelings change and we are always adding life experiences...and the basic assumption with that statement is really that the feelings of others and their experiences can be instructive too. Sometimes it can be more objective when you can view it from the outside.

8. The humanities are valuable in studying the human condition.
8a. The humanities are more valuable in this regard than science.
9. The study of morality and the study of the human condition are inextricable.

amen

10. The humanities are irrational, and do not operate on a logical or consistent basis but are rather totally personal.
11. Humans are disordered and inconsistent on every level.
11.a. Personal experience is irrational and therefore valuable.

I think it's obvious I flubbed it when talking about "personal" and about "rationally ordered".

Let's take lying....

Someone says something to you...you have to judge whether what they said was true, or how close to to truth it was, whether it was misleading, whether they mispoke, whether it's not true because it's a generalization, whether the generalization is defensible, whether they know the truth, whether if they know the truth it is something they could express easily, what emotion they are feeling when they say it, what their motivation or intent is, how uncommon a lie it would be, how serious a matter it is, what kind of situation it is, how much effort they put into the deception...that's all I can think of at the moment, sorry it's an awkward attempt. These are all things that can effect how we react to a lie. But the judgement occurs right off the bat, possibly we are getting angry and frowning before we even realize it. Often it's incorrect, but it's unavoidably our basis.

Now what does a rational, logical, consistent moral basis for examining lies look like?

Perhaps it starts with a definition of lying that includes "there must be an intent to deceive". Our knowledge of that intent, if we have it, came from the initial judgement. What good is asking ourselves, consciously, whether it was there? And why would we imagine there is a a single definition of lying that is applicable to the entire range of social situations?

The moral rule "lying is wrong" we know is dumb because we have a range of reactions that goes from sympathetic to apathetic to disgusted to furious.

What we are really doing is, first of all, making a purely personal judgment of the person. But this never takes place in isolation--it depends on our relationship with the person.Then we are going to make a judgment about what response to make. This may be completely at odds with our personal judgment. Parents often don't care about their kids lies, understand why they lied, see right through it, but they want to teach them not to do it.

Distinct from all this are moral codes about lying. There are some lies that societies or cultures judge, at that time, rightly or wrongly, to be serious enough to require a well known cultural response. Other times certain groups will decide to hold themselves to particular high standards. These are often distinct from our natural judgments, but influence them as well and especially influence the response we think necessary.

Now, I would say, that since, essentially, every lie is different, and since judgments take place so fast, and rely so little on consciousness but instead on emotional reactions, that it is a requirement to have extensive social experience, as we all do, and to reflect upon that experience. What do we think about when we reflect? All the various things that go into it like in my list, or most likely one that stood out. We can ask ourselves whether they really believed what they said. Whether they fooled themselves into believing it. Maybe we'll ask ourselves how much we care, which is really just checking our feelings at the moment.

And I haven't even gone into honesty as a virtue.

Why someone would truly believe science, logic, and a consistent rational basis for morality come into it is beyond me. That might possibly describe a legal code for dealing with lying...I hope our legal system has a logical, consistent, rational basis for determining whether something is slander and judging it...but that's not morality...

Anything logical or rational would have to rely on something close to "lying is always wrong" or "lying is wrong if it causes harm" or something. Many philosophers have said that. There may well be some philosophy out there that is good food for thought on the subject, I can't think of any off hand.

The fact is its absurd to act like we make moral judgments in a reasonable manner and from an impartial viewpoint. That's why moral philosophy that focuses on rules, rationality, logic, etc are generally useless. It's very personal, situational, social, and instinctive. Either discuss specific lies that you've seen or talk in general about what kind of person to be and how to treat people. You might use a principle you've heard of about lying to think about a specific lie, but you shouldn't expect that principle to always apply.

You can make statements that are generally true about lying, but they wouldn't be rules that you could apply. "people should usually be instinctively averse to deceiving someone who trusts them" for example.

Also...unavoidably in these moral issues we have the questions "How high a standard should I hold myself too? How high a standard should I hold others too?". In general, religions set the bar high. It's kind of a puritan thing. Can you answer those questions scientifically, rationally? I don't think so. Secular people often go off of what they've been taught, are puritanical about taboos, and (too often) try to justify their vices with an appeal to "natural" or "normal". I'm not sure I can really answer them. I guess I would say keep a high standard for yourself (but not so high that it's just a matter of pride) and have a "short memory" (as they say in sports), and be accepting of others.

I'm going to skip out on trying to edit this and you can tell me which parts don't make sense...

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 08:13

Studies of normal people tend towards either the biological

That's the idea, isn't it?

or the better accessed through the humanities or the wrong.

You keep saying that, alright. On what criteria and by what authority?

feelings of others and their experiences

Alright, so you're sure about that. You're big on the phenomenological aspect of philosophy. What if cognitive science demonstrates that experience as we understand/define it does not exist?

sensation and perception

That's what you're about.

Most important knowledge has its root in personal experience. The reason people misjudge other cultures is mainly from a lack of personal experience living in that culture. "walk a mile in their shoes" as they say.

Again, factual knowledge takes a backseat to personal experience. Wouldn't one of the applications of what we discussed earlier be input of information, ergo experience? How about that?

Let's take lying....

A lie is just an untruth, nothing more. Whether or not it is deliberate or not, misinformed or not, doesn't matter. The actual thorny problem concerns the nature of truth.

Now what does a rational, logical, consistent moral basis for examining lies look like?

Uh. Look, you can't get around it: your approach is internally perfectly consistent and rational. Just accept it and move on.

The moral rule "lying is wrong" we know is dumb because we have a range of reactions that goes from sympathetic to apathetic to disgusted to furious.

Perhaps, if something is wrong, it's just wrong no matter what.

And I haven't even gone into honesty as a virtue.

The ancients lapped that stuff up.

These are often distinct from our natural judgments

I don't recognize that a judgment can be unnatural.

and rely so little on consciousness but instead on emotional reactions

There isn't such a clear distinction. Do you describe individuals as either right-brained or left-brained? Just go with "spontaneous" vs. "considered".

A
nything logical or rational would have to rely on something close to "lying is always wrong" or "lying is wrong if it causes harm" or something.

Why? I don't see it. Using logic to reach a moral conclusion, anyway, is a bit like cheating. It requires that one make an implicit or explicit assumption for every deductive step but the last or penultimate. Given that, there are many ways to reach a "logical" moral conclusion. Any number, really. Of course, it isn't really proper logic but that doesn't stop many.

That's why moral philosophy that focuses on rules, rationality, logic, etc are generally useless. It's very personal, situational, social, and instinctive.

It's a contradiction, really. You have a rule.

Can you answer those questions scientifically, rationally? I don't think so.

My beef is not your views on science vis-a-vis morality, but the humanities and the human condition. I tried to explain how natural science could be highly successful in unraveling the questions that the humanities have been asking for a while, as well as requiring new ones to be posed. Only someone with a criminal hand could contest it.

I'm not sure I can really answer them. I guess I would say keep a high standard for yourself (but not so high that it's just a matter of pride) and have a "short memory" (as they say in sports), and be accepting of others.

So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...

Ironside

10-24-2012, 08:57

Like I said--it's as if I'm defending a "life begins at conception" person (who I'm confidant is not going to effect change in our country) vs some people I have profound disagreements with. In other countries, the creationist types are much more of a problem.
They are stronger in the US than any other western country.

I don't think the question in your example is "Why did this happen?" by the way. It's "how do I deal with this". I've heard that people were simply less attached to their children until they reached a certain age back when infant deaths were common, don't know if it's true or not though. I'd be surprised if you think scientific knowledge has helped us deal with the death of a child though.
That part goes under therapy, that stuff you found important but disqualified from this discussion.

Well, this one is well-known: interfering with the activity of certain brain regions by means of magnetic fields causes a temporary change in how those affected approach and respond to moral dilemmas - to put it simply. It's part of a larger subset of behavioral changes that can be produced via transcranial magnetic stimulation. I'd love to see how you would react to such a treatment. :sneaky:

We can dial it up from there if you think this one's trivial?

Well, I've never seen what's interesting about it. It sounds like a curiosity to me.

Minor stuff. Like that your soul isn't your mind. It's also getting closer to another big question: what is your conciousness? By current data, it seems to act as a communication center between specialized areas, that treat things such as knowing your own body parts, the concept of left (yes really. They can eat all food on the plate, rotate it and suddenly more food appears. Loosing the concept of right requires a mirror brain, otherwise it'll make you blind) and things like that.

Did you need the the cognitive psychology studies to see that humanity is difficult to just understand and that many people have false ideas? That's something many people have seen without studies. I wouldn't characterize it as a finding.
I wouldn't characterize finding out that people have existed before me as a finding, ergo history is useless. Broad brush covers everything important.

The effect of culture on values is more impressive. If you study history or anthropology you'll get a lot more interesting food for thought about values than in neuroscience I think. If you are curious about whether we overvalue compassion, wouldn't you look at history and at other cultures that have had a different approach to it and seen what it was like?

Ah, history. The study of when the first source lied, the second one (who wrote it down) was as accurate as Braveheart, third one took the most exiting stuff as the truth and added some even better stuff, fourth took it as truth (lot's of history books are at this point btw), while the fifth and sixth tries to piece together what really happened using different methods (usually based on some kind aspected view of history). You can learn a lot from that can you?

Now a paper where the first source tried to document everything as throughly as possible? That's bull and you can't learn anything useful from there.

Sir Moody

10-24-2012, 12:57

Ah, history. The study of when the first source lied, the second one (who wrote it down) was as accurate as Braveheart, third one took the most exiting stuff as the truth and added some even better stuff, fourth took it as truth (lot's of history books are at this point btw), while the fifth and sixth tries to piece together what really happened using different methods (usually based on some kind aspected view of history). You can learn a lot from that can you?

There is a quote from one of the best (in my opinion) sci-fi shows that sums up History as a subject perfectly - (props to anyone who figures out which show ~;))

“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”

When you are reading any historical text you are only getting the "their" side of what happened - and what you walk away with is "your" side - neither of these are necessarily the truth

Ironside

10-24-2012, 17:16

There is a quote from one of the best (in my opinion) sci-fi shows that sums up History as a subject perfectly - (props to anyone who figures out which show ~;))

When you are reading any historical text you are only getting the "their" side of what happened - and what you walk away with is "your" side - neither of these are necessarily the truth

It's worse than that, for a long time "based on a true story" was the way to write history, accuracy be damned. It's interesting with history and it has many facets of knowledge, but praising it while damning science as a whole, doesn't exactly strike true. It already contradict at least one previous statement.

Sasaki, do you consider science to only be statistics and clinical studies of one or a few factors, and not good bacause they're not having all factors the real world do?

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 19:03

So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...

Excuse me, I was delirious. :laugh4:

What I meant to say was that it came as a disappointment to see the process of such an unusual worldview come to something so banal, like an advice column in a magazine for middle-aged moms.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 19:31

You keep saying that, alright. On what criteria and by what authority?

Your idea that there is are objective criteria and authority is part of your problem.

Alright, so you're sure about that. You're big on the phenomenological aspect of philosophy. What if cognitive science demonstrates that experience as we understand/define it does not exist?

How would it demonstrate that?

Again, factual knowledge takes a backseat to personal experience. Wouldn't one of the applications of what we discussed earlier be input of information, ergo experience? How about that?

What about it?

A lie is just an untruth, nothing more. Whether or not it is deliberate or not, misinformed or not, doesn't matter. The actual thorny problem concerns the nature of truth.

Sorry that's nonsense.

Uh. Look, you can't get around it: your approach is internally perfectly consistent and rational. Just accept it and move on.

eh, you understand the context of the talk about the rational approach, right?

Perhaps, if something is wrong, it's just wrong no matter what.

So you think lying just means stating an untruth, and so stating an untruth is always morally wrong? Very weird

There isn't such a clear distinction. Do you describe individuals as either right-brained or left-brained? Just go with "spontaneous" vs. "considered".

I don't know much about that left brain right brain stuff.

I think they talk about it, in their laborious way, as type 1 and type 2 processes.

Why? I don't see it. Using logic to reach a moral conclusion, anyway, is a bit like cheating. It requires that one make an implicit or explicit assumption for every deductive step but the last or penultimate. Given that, there are many ways to reach a "logical" moral conclusion. Any number, really. Of course, it isn't really proper logic but that doesn't stop many.

Often in morality there's just the premise, no deductive steps. The idea that there should be deductive steps, starting from a foundation, is the problem.

It's a contradiction, really. You have a rule.

:shrug:

How much of the rule based, rational etc philosophy have you read? I have an approach that I think is right. You're objection here is like saying "you have a rule against rules, therefore you base things on a rule"

My beef is not your views on science vis-a-vis morality, but the humanities and the human condition. I tried to explain how natural science could be highly successful in unraveling the questions that the humanities have been asking for a while, as well as requiring new ones to be posed. Only someone with a criminal hand could contest it.

The humanities have asked a great many dumb questions. I'm sure science can unravel many of them.

I don't consider someone, say, sitting around asking "what is it in music that makes me feel energized?" to be doing good work in the humanities. People who try a humanities approach there will probably come out with some silly verbiage. If you really wanted to know you would go for neuroscience.

So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...

Principles serve as foundations for a system, they are just general, loose, concepts.

Most everyone believes that harming others is generally bad and that pleasure is generally more desirable than pain, but they don't take that as principles.

I'm curious where you're coming from on this, your ideas about the definition of lying and about what a principle and rule based morality would mean are not what I thought they'd be.

They are stronger in the US than any other western country.

Yes! And just look at the other western countries. No offense.

That part goes under therapy, that stuff you found important but disqualified from this discussion.

Dealing with life is not therapy. It's for everyone. Therapy is for people who can't deal with it on their own and for people with serious issues.

Minor stuff. Like that your soul isn't your mind. It's also getting closer to another big question: what is your conciousness? By current data, it seems to act as a communication center between specialized areas, that treat things such as knowing your own body parts, the concept of left (yes really. They can eat all food on the plate, rotate it and suddenly more food appears. Loosing the concept of right requires a mirror brain, otherwise it'll make you blind) and things like that.

We treat those things as big questions because of our religious heritage and our tendency towards mysticism. Not a surprise, since much of scientific motivation originates there. It's like those scientists who spend their time thinking about big bang stuff, they would have gone deep into theology in an earlier time most likely. Not saying they aren't doing legitimate science, but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.

I wouldn't characterize finding out that people have existed before me as a finding, ergo history is useless. Broad brush covers everything important.

Ah, history. The study of when the first source lied, the second one (who wrote it down) was as accurate as Braveheart, third one took the most exiting stuff as the truth and added some even better stuff, fourth took it as truth (lot's of history books are at this point btw), while the fifth and sixth tries to piece together what really happened using different methods (usually based on some kind aspected view of history). You can learn a lot from that can you?

Now a paper where the first source tried to document everything as throughly as possible? That's bull and you can't learn anything useful from there.

There is a quote from one of the best (in my opinion) sci-fi shows that sums up History as a subject perfectly - (props to anyone who figures out which show ~;))

When you are reading any historical text you are only getting the "their" side of what happened - and what you walk away with is "your" side - neither of these are necessarily the truth

It's worse than that, for a long time "based on a true story" was the way to write history, accuracy be damned. It's interesting with history and it has many facets of knowledge, but praising it while damning science as a whole, doesn't exactly strike true. It already contradict at least one previous statement.

But this is you having the wrong approach again...it's a very good illustration.

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.

Sasaki, do you consider science to only be statistics and clinical studies of one or a few factors, and not good bacause they're not having all factors the real world do?

They used to not make a distinction between science and philosophy, yes? But today we make a distinction. The methods that have been around before that distinction are not really science in our modern sense. Farmers have not been scientists since the dawn of time. People who selected bigger fruit to get seeds from were not genetic engineers, etc.

What I meant to say was that it came as a disappointment to see the process of such an unusual worldview come to something so banal, like an advice column in a magazine for middle-aged moms.

But that's the point--such statements are insignificant...platitudes...proverbs...old grandpa advice. They aren't the real deal. It's like saying "life isn't fair" or something. It's just a reference to a body of experience/knowledge/etc.

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 20:12

Your idea that there is are objective criteria and authority is part of your problem.

So, I should just take your word for it on no basis whatsoever? You know best in all matters?

Sorry that's nonsense.

Because it makes things difficult for you? No dice.

So you think lying just means stating an untruth, and so stating an untruth is always morally wrong? Very weird

Did I say that?

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.

You don't see how it might be presumptuous to unilaterally prescribe a purpose for history to the exclusion of all else?

What about it?

As in, gain a lifetime's experience in a single treatment. Obviates any need for deep personal study of the humanities, doesn't it?

How much of the rule based, rational etc philosophy have you read? I have an approach that I think is right. You're objection here is like saying "you have a rule against rules, therefore you base things on a rule"

That's not it. "Acquire insight through personal experience": a rule. An example of inconsistency would be, 'Allah is the only God. Allah is ultimate. Allah is Law. Hitler is the greatest of all. Heil Hitler. His wisdom shall guide us above all things.'

but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.

It's not scientific to describe anything as having ultimate, transcendental importance. Do you expect, though, that scientists can only be credible if they discourse only in terms of science? A scientist can't just be a regular guy with hopes, dreams, and petty musings?

rvg

10-24-2012, 20:18

Did I say that?

You equated an "untruth" with a "lie". While every lie is an untruth, not every untruth is a lie.

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 20:22

You equated an "untruth" with a "lie". While every lie is an untruth, not every untruth is a lie.

he asked whether I personally believe that any lie is absolutely morally wrong. I never said I did. I deny it even now.

Anyway, if you look up "lie" in any dictionary, one of the meanings listed will be "a falsehood".

Untruth: it is a superior formulation of the word "lie".

"To deceive intentionally" is not a tautology.

rvg

10-24-2012, 20:26

"To deceive intentionally" is not a tautology.

Sure it is. Deceit is by definition intentional. If you don't know that you're propagating an untruth, you're not engaging in deceit.

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 20:28

Sure it is. Deceit is by definition intentional. If you don't know that you're propagating an untruth, you're not engaging in deceit.

to cause to believe what is false.

I prefer it.

rvg

10-24-2012, 20:34

I prefer it.

Definition of deceit
noun
the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth:
a web of deceit
a series of lies and deceits
Origin:

Middle English: from Old French, past participle (used as a noun) of deceveir 'deceive'

source (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/deceit?region=us&q=deceit)...

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 20:38

So, I should just take your word for it on no basis whatsoever? You know best in all matters?

Why would you take my word for it? Taking someones word for it is exactly what I'm saying we shouldn't do...not the bibles, not your preachers, not a scientists...when you're young you take your parents word for things, once you get older you move away from that and only do it when it's your best option, and then only provisionally.

I don't take the attitude that in this kind of arguments, those who disagree with me are ignoring some authority or expert or consensus opinion among the educated...when I present my word it should just be my word...

In the hard sciences you accept the scientific authority and consensus on things...not the humanities

Because it makes things difficult for you? No dice.

"Lying is just stating an untruth"

So if I sincerely believed something, and told it to you, and you knew it wasn't true, you'd think I was a liar? Weathermen lie constantly? People state untruths all the time...

You don't see how it might be presumptuous to unilaterally prescribe a purpose for history to the exclusion of all else?

I could say nothing at all I guess. But I have beliefs about the best purpose of history, why not? You should have beliefs about what the purpose of history is.

As in, gain a lifetime's experience in a single treatment. Obviates any need for deep personal study of the humanities, doesn't it?

I don't find this sci-fi stuff very interesting I presumptuously declare it to be uninteresting.

I mean I enjoyed dollhouse but its just for fun.

That's not it. "Acquire insight through personal experience": a rule. An example of inconsistency would be, 'Allah is the only God. Allah is ultimate. Allah is Law. Hitler is the greatest of all. Heil Hitler. His wisdom shall guide us above all things.'

Acquiring insight through personal experience is what people do.

A belief that their are virtues is different from a rule based moral system.

It's not scientific to describe anything as having ultimate, transcendental importance. Do you expect, though, that scientists can only be credible if they discourse only in terms of science? A scientist can't just be a regular guy with hopes, dreams, and petty musings?

I expect them not to scorn religious beliefs from one side of their mouth and have mystical pseudo-philosophy come out of the other.(and they rarely do by the way, that's more of a journalist thing). Scientists are credible on science.

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 20:39

"Oxford Dictionaries: The World's Most Trusted Dictionaries" *snort*

The point isn't to prescribe a source, but to demonstrate that the definition exists and is widespread.

That ain't OED, by the way.

So if I sincerely believed something, and told it to you, and you knew it wasn't true, you'd think I was a liar? Weathermen lie constantly? People state untruths all the time...

I like it precisely because it evicts all of this moral distortion. A false fact is a lie, indeed.

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 20:51

A belief that their are virtues is different from a rule based moral system.

And so individuals, to ascertain virtue, must acquire and examine personal experience? I don't see how it is not one. Is this too laborious for your tastes or something?

I presumptuously declare it to be uninteresting.

I mean I enjoyed dollhouse but its just for fun.

Let's meet back up in a decade.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 21:00

I like it precisely because it evicts all of this moral distortion. A false fact is a lie, indeed.

So you like things simple...hmm.

or "undistorted" sorry.

And so individuals, to ascertain virtue, must acquire and examine personal experience? I don't see how it is not one. Is this too laborious for your tastes or something?

Tensions are not something to be avoided

People should be charitable but they should look after themselves and those close to them...it's a powerful tension. There is no rational, objective, systematic way to decide which is right in a situation. Oftentimes there is no clear answer. Systematic, rule based moral codes seek to avoid that tension, and that is their problem:

1) Being selfish is a vice
2) Being selfish is good; charity is not a virtue

Some people believe these or say they do, but they are too blunt and extreme for most.The utilitarian "resolution" is just smoke and mirrors. If we should create the maximum well being, then we should be dedicating our lives to helping the 3rd world. That's too much like (1) for most people, so they come up with some argument or rationalization to get out of it while preserving their belief that they are a utilitarian.

We should not tell ourselves that we've resolved the tension, that we have a clear cut, consistent, rational, logical moral system.

I'm not sure if this sounds like a non-sequitur to you but I think we're talking past each other with this rule stuff. A belief is not a rule.

Montmorency

10-24-2012, 21:23

So you like things simple...hmm.

I like to keep the unnecessary and unhelpful at a remove.

If we should create the maximum well being, then we should be dedicating our lives to helping the 3rd world.

The problem with utilitarianism is that value is internal and personal, as I said. Case in point: I don't see how "helping" the 3rd world per se would create the maximum well-being.

A belief is not a rule.

You have an approach to solving, or approximating solutions to, moral dilemmas - a specific prescribed approach that is not simply "what people do"....I don't suppose we can resolve this. I understand what you're saying, but think you're off on this detail. Let's leave it at that.

Ironside

10-24-2012, 21:23

Yes! And just look at the other western countries. No offense.

No taken. Now, please explain to me in wich way creationists, by their actions, are part of making America great.

Dealing with life is not therapy. It's for everyone. Therapy is for people who can't deal with it on their own and for people with serious issues.

Any potentially traumatic experience needs a coping mechanism. Therapy is an outsider training you in a coping mechanism. So even if it's a sort of self medication, learning methods on how to cope is a form of therapy.

We treat those things as big questions because of our religious heritage and our tendency towards mysticism. Not a surprise, since much of scientific motivation originates there. It's like those scientists who spend their time thinking about big bang stuff, they would have gone deep into theology in an earlier time most likely. Not saying they aren't doing legitimate science, but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.
Please tell us what you consider the big questions then. The one about if we have a core, an essense (aka a soul) and how it would work is appearently not a big one. How the mind works isn't a big one. You're a driver in a car, who doesn't feel to need to know anything about the car it self. Only, dealing with life is unexpected, bumpy and gives a dent or two, if you're lucky.

But this is you having the wrong approach again...it's a very good illustration.

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.
Read a book.

Seriously, if that's the goal why not simply focus on media? It has the same principle of stories about human nature and deals much more about that insight you mention. Of course the same problem of source checking that occurs in science applies. Only because you find it insightful and amazing doesn't mean that it is.

They used to not make a distinction between science and philosophy, yes? But today we make a distinction. The methods that have been around before that distinction are not really science in our modern sense. Farmers have not been scientists since the dawn of time. People who selected bigger fruit to get seeds from were not genetic engineers, etc.

And the scientific method was vast improvements on both areas, indicating that using science on humanities would do the same. I have to agree on that... Or maybe you had some other point with that. Applying an older method systematically and refining it are indeed principles of the scientific method. Or are you telling that breeding can't be science since it was done before someone applied a scientific method on it?

We should not tell ourselves that we've resolved the tension, that we have a clear cut, consistent, rational, logical moral system.

I'm not sure if this sounds like a non-sequitur to you but I think we're talking past each other with this rule stuff. A belief is not a rule.
And that's one big thing people tries to get out of religion. And you praise religious people for doing it.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 21:44

I like to keep the unnecessary and unhelpful at a remove.

The problem with utilitarianism is that value is internal and personal, as I said. Case in point: I don't see how "helping" the 3rd world per se would create the maximum well-being.

You have an approach to solving, or approximating solutions to, moral dilemmas - a specific prescribed approach that is not simply "what people do"....I don't suppose we can resolve this. I understand what you're saying, but think you're off on this detail. Let's leave it at that.

I certainly have an approach. I don't think it's that specific but that doesn't seem like an important detail to me. It's distinct from the other approaches that I've been criticizing. I think our mutual confusion stems from a different conception of what those other approaches are like.

No taken. Now, please explain to me in wich way creationists, by their actions, are part of making America great.

America isn't that great. But we are at least more skeptical of intellectuals and of technological and social progressivism. Acceptance of strong religious faith and creationism is part of that.

Any potentially traumatic experience needs a coping mechanism. Therapy is an outsider training you in a coping mechanism. So even if it's a sort of self medication, learning methods on how to cope is a form of therapy.

Then we are all therapists

Please tell us what you consider the big questions then. The one about if we have a core, an essense (aka a soul) and how it would work is appearently not a big one. How the mind works isn't a big one. You're a driver in a car, who doesn't feel to need to know anything about the car it self. Only, dealing with life is unexpected, bumpy and gives a dent or two, if you're lucky.

Well, do you really like that analogy? I know very little about cars, most people don't. We do just fine. I learned to drive, not how fuel injection works.

I don't think there's a list of big questions, that's why I've used a general term. Questions of morality, of values, of conceptions of things like honesty, pride, ambition, passion, what is fulfilling, etc...the things that are most important to our lives, the things that generally fall under the category "wisdom" and not "cleverness" or "intelligence" or simply "knowledge". It's not a sociological definition, I'm not conceiving of it simply in terms of the questions that are considered to be big by large groups of people.

If you look at religions around the world you would find many questions they consider huge that you don't. The stuff about "a core, an essence (aka a soul) is one that we inherited from religion and the rejection of religion. As someone who was raised atheist it's not least bit interesting to me--I never believed in heaven, etc.

Read a book.

Seriously, if that's the goal why not simply focus on media? It has the same principle of stories about human nature and deals much more about that insight you mention. Of course the same problem of source checking that occurs in science applies. Only because you find it insightful and amazing doesn't mean that it is.

I don't follow you with the media bit.

Literature is often very fictional. But you understand the value of it? I agree that history should aim at the truth of what happened, but I'm saying the theoretical limitations are not that significant. People overreach in history just as they do in science but that's not relevant to our argument.

And the scientific method was vast improvements on both areas, indicating that using science on humanities would do the same. I have to agree on that... Or maybe you had some other point with that. Applying an older method systematically and refining it are indeed principles of the scientific method. Or are you telling that breeding can't be science since it was done before someone applied a scientific method on it?

Science improves agriculture, therefore it will improve the humanities? That's what I got out of this, is it what you mean?

Ironside

10-24-2012, 22:52

America isn't that great. But we are at least more skeptical of intellectuals and of technological and social progressivism. Acceptance of strong religious faith and creationism is part of that.

Fair enough. Would you say that the places of USA where this sceptitism are strongest are the better parts of USA?

Then we are all therapists

In a way. On this matter, only learned techniques fall under science (as do learning and understanding the instinctual ones).

Well, do you really like that analogy? I know very little about cars, most people don't. We do just fine. I learned to drive, not how fuel injection works.

I don't think there's a list of big questions, that's why I've used a general term. Questions of morality, of values, of conceptions of things like honesty, pride, ambition, passion, what is fulfilling, etc...the things that are most important to our lives, the things that generally fall under the category "wisdom" and not "cleverness" or "intelligence" or simply "knowledge". It's not a sociological definition, I'm not conceiving of it simply in terms of the questions that are considered to be big by large groups of people.

I do like that anology. You know why? A. I thought you'll like it. B. Passing as a driver without knowing the car is what most people do. You on the other hand wants people to be as good drivers as they can be. And that requires knowing the car. Sounds, traction, engine strength, etc. Fuel injection in this case is the biochemistry.

Wisdom driven? While I really do love the idea, good luck with that (I can suggest more science on the subject though). Also ponder on that one pillar of wisdom is knowledge. Good application of your knowledge is covering quite a bit of what you call wisdom, yes?

If you look at religions around the world you would find many questions they consider huge that you don't. The stuff about "a core, an essence (aka a soul) is one that we inherited from religion and the rejection of religion. As someone who was raised atheist it's not least bit interesting to me--I never believed in heaven, etc.

I'm finding what your conciousness is and how it works as the more important question actually. Because of its influence and its implications. To keep the car anology, this car can override its driver, force him to take something unwanted into consideration and even replace him with another one. You find this subject boring.

I don't follow you with the media bit.

Literature is often very fictional. But you understand the value of it? I agree that history should aim at the truth of what happened, but I'm saying the theoretical limitations are not that significant. People overreach in history just as they do in science but that's not relevant to our argument.
And? What you read from that historian with insight is coming from his mind. Like every fictional story. One part of good literature is that it succeeds in understanding how a human works. And yes it's very valuable. What I oppose is your claim of it being the only source of insight, so to speak.

Science improves agriculture, therefore it will improve the humanities? That's what I got out of this, is it what you mean?
Adding the scientific method on top of experience is superior to experience alone. Running without the experince is way more iffy. To backtrack to the original question: What do you consider is science? For me, it's following the scientific method.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-24-2012, 23:15

I do like that anology. You know why? A. I thought you'll like it. B. Passing as a driver without knowing the car is what most people do. You on the other hand wants people to be as good drivers as they can be. And that requires knowing the car. Sounds, traction, engine strength, etc. Fuel injection in this case is the biochemistry.

It's all stuff you learn by driving. Maximizing driving ability is not important.

Wisdom driven? While I really do love the idea, good luck with that (I can suggest more science on the subject though). Also ponder on that one pillar of wisdom is knowledge. Good application of your knowledge is covering quite a bit of what you call wisdom, yes?

I promoted reading history books...clearly I believe knowledge is important. Most scientific knowledge is not important for "wisdom".

I'm finding what your conciousness is and how it works as the more important question actually. Because of its influence and its implications. To keep the car anology, this car can override its driver, force him to take something unwanted into consideration and even replace him with another one. You find this subject boring.

No. It's an interesting subject. I just want to learn about it by driving and watching other people drive and getting verbal advice on driving. You want to understand the fuel injection system.

And? What you read from that historian with insight is coming from his mind. Like every fictional story. One part of good literature is that it succeeds in understanding how a human works. And yes it's very valuable. What I oppose is your claim of it being the only source of insight, so to speak.

Adding the scientific method on top of experience is superior to experience alone. Running without the experince is way more iffy. To backtrack to the original question: What do you consider is science? For me, it's following the scientific method.

I would go back to the music analogy. Do you truly think those questions about the effect of base or frequency on the brain are interesting and offer important insights? Clearly they are insights that you wouldn't get without the scientific method.