Separation of Science and State

[HoreTore]

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

Bah. Have fun chipping splinters.

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

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

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

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

[Viking]

Bah. Have fun chipping splinters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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

[Beskar]

I say "Define God" and no one replies.

It is because I am right, innit?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I say "Define God" and no one replies.

It is because I am right, innit?

First Cause.

Happy?

[Strike For The South]

Shouting you suck is a perfectly acceptable answer

[Beskar]

First Cause.

Happy?

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

[The Stranger]

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

prove the truth of the scientific method.

[Beskar]

prove the truth of the scientific method.

Invalid question?

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

[The Stranger]

Invalid question?

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

Who says it isn't "God"?

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

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

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

[Beskar]

Who says it isn't "God"?

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

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

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

[The Stranger]

nvrmind.

[Reenk Roink]

nvrmind.

You do learn quickly.

[Beskar]

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

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

(The validity speaks for itself.)

[The Stranger]

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

(The validity speaks for itself.)

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

[The Stranger]

You do learn quickly.

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

[Beskar]

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

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

Here, I did it for you:

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

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

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

It's not dogmatic in the slightest.

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

[The Stranger]

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

Here, I did it for you:



It's not dogmatic in the slightest.

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

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

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

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

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

[Beskar]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Stranger]

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

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

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

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

[Beskar]

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

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

[The Stranger]

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

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

[Beskar]

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

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

[The Stranger]

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

[Beskar]

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

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

[The Stranger]

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

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

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