Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on March 04, 2024, 06:39:40 AM
-
Sriram,
He opens with a basic Paley's watch error ("everything looks created, therefore.. a creator!") and proceeds from that false premise. Why is it worth repeating do you think?
As cosily reassuring Paley's watch error claim is, it avoids the implication that something that looks created, could in fact actually be created.
Dawkin's acknowledges this but goes on and contradicts himself by stating that the universe looks as though it hasn't been created, giving "science" as his warrant.
No doubt you will argue that Dawkins merely states that the universe merely "looks" as though it wasn't created but that Paley wasn't saying the universe merely "looks" like it was created.
Dawkin's and yourself piss about too much imo with the "improbability of God based on science" shtick.
-
Vlad,
As cosily reassuring Paley's watch error claim is, it avoids the implication that something that looks created, could in fact actually be created.
You don't understand the Paley's Watch fallacy.
Dawkin's acknowledges this but goes on and contradicts himself by stating that the universe looks as though it hasn't been created, giving "science" as his warrant.
I'm pretty sure "Dawkin's" (sic) doesn't do that, but no doubt you can provide a citation so we we're know you're not just making it up right?
No doubt you will argue that Dawkins merely states that the universe merely "looks" as though it wasn't created but that Paley wasn't saying the universe merely "looks" like it was created.
No - that's just you straw manning again. Why would I (or Richard Dawkins) say any such thing rather than what we actually say?
Dawkin's and yourself piss about too much imo with the "improbability of God based on science" shtick.
"Dawkin's" (sic) says no such thing. Why do you persist with such dishonest fantasies?
-
As cosily reassuring Paley's watch error claim is, it avoids the implication that something that looks created, could in fact actually be created.
It doesn't ignore it, it starts with the observation that life on Earth looks, superficially, as though it were created. The argument then goes through various different threads to show that superficial view is at best questionable - it doesn't definitely 'prove' that things couldn't be created, just that if they were it's by someone deliberately attempting to imply, or utilise, natural causes and effects.
O.
-
It doesn't ignore it, it starts with the observation that life on Earth looks, superficially, as though it were created. The argument then goes through various different threads to show that superficial view is at best questionable - it doesn't definitely 'prove' that things couldn't be created, just that if they were it's by someone deliberately attempting to imply, or utilise, natural causes and effects.
O.
Perhaps you can justify the addition of the word”superficially” here.
How does science call “creation” into question?
-
Vlad,
Perhaps you can justify the addition of the word”superficially” here.
An object appearing to be created does not justify the statement that therefore it is created.
How does science call “creation” into question?
Science doesn't.
-
Perhaps you can justify the addition of the word”superficially” here.
I don't see that it needs a clarification - on a first inspection creation could be presumed, but digging under the surface calls that into question.
How does science call “creation” into question?
The natural world we have shows innumerable examples of repurposed developments, biological activities which would make no sense as an independent design but do make sense as the result of iterative variations selected for local fitness. For someone who's so vocal about Professor Dawkins' writings, you don't appear to have actually understood very many of them.
O.
-
I don't see that it needs a clarification - on a first inspection creation could be presumed, but digging under the surface calls that into question.
It's not clarification of your assertion that's required it's justification. Here, you are just repeating the assertion
The natural world we have shows innumerable examples of repurposed developments, biological activities which would make no sense as an independent design but do make sense as the result of iterative variations selected for local fitness. For someone who's so vocal about Professor Dawkins' writings, you don't appear to have actually understood very many of them.
O.
As a poster of several years I have noticed people having to be reminded that biological evolution is not biogenesis, let alone genesis(creation) and now here am I reminding you.
Wll you now justify your use of the word superficial since we are talking about creator rather than designer/craftsman.
-
Vlad,
It's not clarification of your assertion that's required it's justification. Here, you are just repeating the assertion
The clarification has already been given to you – because an observed object or phenomenon is complex does not imply that it was purposely created that way. That’s why just assuming that it was is “superficial”.
Any rowing back on you getting Paley’s watch arse-backwards by the way?
As a poster of several years I have noticed people having to be reminded that biological evolution is not biogenesis, let alone genesis(creation) and now here am I reminding you.
Presumably you’re trying to say abiogenesis here, and you don’t need to “remind” anyone of that because no-one here has suggested otherwise.
Wll you now justify your use of the word superficial since we are talking about creator rather than designer/craftsman.
See above (and a non sequitur).
-
It's not clarification of your assertion that's required it's justification. Here, you are just repeating the assertion
I'm referencing a well-documented, publicly available body of work that demonstrates it's not an assertion - I can't do the reading for you.
As a poster of several years I have noticed people having to be reminded that biological evolution is not biogenesis, let alone genesis(creation) and now here am I reminding you.
And as a poster of several years I need to point out the god of the gaps fallacy, again.
Wll you now justify your use of the word superficial since we are talking about creator rather than designer/craftsman.
No, it's still a work of poor design before you ever get to considering life. Why is there such a vast expanse of empty, hostile to life space if life is the point? It doesn't take much investigation to find things that make you question whether it's actually designed - hence, superficial.
O.
-
I'm referencing a well-documented, publicly available body of work that demonstrates it's not an assertion - I can't do the reading for you.
And as a poster of several years I need to point out the god of the gaps fallacy, again.
No, it's still a work of poor design before you ever get to considering life. Why is there such a vast expanse of empty, hostile to life space if life is the point? It doesn't take much investigation to find things that make you question whether it's actually designed - hence, superficial.
O.
Evolution is a change in what is already there. Creation is what is responsible for what is there.
Independence of action in the created order is part and parcel of monotheistic religions e.g.free will.
You cannot blame God for your actions and call God of the gaps fallacy at the same time.
It looks as though you are confusing change with creation still.
-
No, it's still a work of poor design before you ever get to considering life. Why is there such a vast expanse of empty, hostile to life space if life is the point? It doesn't take much investigation to find things that make you question whether it's actually designed - hence, superficial.
O.
Calling "poor design" assumes you know what the process is. Go ahead, I'm sure we all want to hear that.
And that is aside from us not actually knowing the limits to alien life.
Whatever the purpose of the universe, God doesn't actually need it. Rather than looking at the universe as a mechanistic industrial process I think we are better off thinking of it more in terms of a piece of art where the art gets to produce itself.
I think Christianity has concentrated more on what mankinds purpose is rather than the purpose of the universe and this is summed up in the Westminster confession "man's chief end is to know God and enjoy him forever"
-
Calling "poor design" assumes you know what the process is. Go ahead, I'm sure we all want to hear that.
And that is aside from us not actually knowing the limits to alien life.
Whatever the purpose of the universe, God doesn't actually need it. Rather than looking at the universe as a mechanistic industrial process I think we are better off thinking of it more in terms of a piece of art where the art gets to produce itself.
I think Christianity has concentrated more on what mankinds purpose is rather than the purpose of the universe and this is summed up in the Westminster confession "man's chief end is to know God and enjoy him forever"
Your god created childhood leukemia as a 'piece of aet'? You worship the pain of children as an art work.
-
Calling "poor design" assumes you know what the process is. Go ahead, I'm sure we all want to hear that.
Aside from NS's valid point, there is certainly at least one pertinent instance (one of probably millions) where it is obvious that 'better' design has been achieved on a completely different line of evolution than the humanoid line. The octopus eye is very obviously better designed than the human eye. Now, since the human being is supposedly (according to the Christian view) the crown of creation, why is the human eye more badly designed than that of the octopus? Did "The Fall" actually involve a complete rewiring of the human ocular system? Having achieved such a finely designed (and very similar) eye along the invertebrate line of evolution, why could 'God' not grant us this better designed apparatus? (In fact, the better designed eye had been achieved much earlier on in a much more lowly mollusc than the octopus, namely the Pecten).
I should add that in addition to the octopus eye's better design leading to there being no 'blind spot', there is less danger of retinal detachment. Quite important qualities, I'd have thought.
-
Your god created childhood leukemia as a 'piece of aet'? You worship the pain of children as an art work.
I did mean rather a piece of art which gets to develop itself.
You obviously do not share the view that the universe is a wonderful place, rather a hostile place.
Mind you I suspect there are people who argue both as it suits namely the people who think the universe hostile one minute but are able to enjoy the garden without the fairies, like Douglas Adams , the next.
-
NS,
"Creator" merely implies that something was intentionally created, rather than just came about non-intentionally. I don't know what you mean by "personal" here, nor why a claim of a creator "makes it personal".
Not sure how you can have an accident/ non intentionality when there is, effectively only one thing...the universe...or God...so no context or alternatives for chance/accident to operate.
-
I did mean rather a piece of art which gets to develop itself.
You obviously do not share the view that the universe is a wonderful place, rather a hostile place.
"There were some who believed that the world was, from top to bottom, a conjuror's cave"
David Lindsay - A Voyage to Arcturus.
For those who do not believe, the Universe is simply what it is. Theodicy is simply a problem for - well - those who believe.
-
"There were some who believed that the world was, from top to bottom, a conjuror's cave"
David Lindsay - A Voyage to Arcturus.
For those who do not believe, the Universe is simply what it is.
And what is it Richard?
-
Calling "poor design" assumes you know what the process is. Go ahead, I'm sure we all want to hear that.
No, you don't need that. You can look at the manifest flaws of the end product, the limitations it imposes that don't need to be imposed, and identify poor design.
And that is aside from us not actually knowing the limits to alien life.
Other potentially 'better designed' life doesn't undermine the case of the 'chosen' species of God, and its immediate surroundings, being poorly designed.
Whatever the purpose of the universe, God doesn't actually need it.
We do, though, and it's overwhelmingly hostile to us, who are supposed to be the point of it.
Rather than looking at the universe as a mechanistic industrial process I think we are better off thinking of it more in terms of a piece of art where the art gets to produce itself.
The message it conveys, as a piece of performance art, is poor design.
I think Christianity has concentrated more on what mankinds purpose is rather than the purpose of the universe and this is summed up in the Westminster confession "man's chief end is to know God and enjoy him forever"
Because when they suggested that the universe was there for the purpose of man it quickly became obvious that was nonsense. Before Christianity can focus on what the purpose is of mankind it needs to establish a rationale for presuming there is a purpose, otherwise we're just back to theology being the Emperor's New Clothes of philosophy.
O.
-
I did mean rather a piece of art which gets to develop itself.
Are you saying that your god was not aware of the consequences when he designed the Universe? He didn't know that he was creating a place in which children would have immense suffering?
You obviously do not share the view that the universe is a wonderful place, rather a hostile place.
I do not see those two descriptions of the Universe as mutually exclusive. There's no denying that the Universe is overwhelmingly hostile to us. Humans are only able to live on the surface of one small planet in one of billions of solar systems in one of billions of galaxies, as far as we know.
Even just on this planet, without human created technology, humans can only live on a very small part of it.
-
No, you don't need that. You can look at the manifest flaws of the end product, the limitations it imposes that don't need to be imposed, and identify poor design. You can only have an end product at the end, Outrider, and we are not at the end. For Christians mankind's end or ultimate purpose, as specifically stated and outlined in say, the Westminster confession is to "enjoy God forever" but only willingly. So not a human design issue.
-
You can only have an end product at the end, Outrider, and we are not at the end.
You have an end-product at the point of use - I'm using reality right now (although, to be fair, I'm not sure about you).
For Christians mankind's end or ultimate purpose, as specifically stated and outlined in say, the Westminster confession is to "enjoy God forever" but only willingly. So not a human design issue.
So the rest of us have to suffer for the this art piece because God is perfectly moral...
O.
-
And what is it Richard?
Not something with benign - or hostile - intentions with regards to us.
-
Vlad,
Not sure how you can have an accident/ non intentionality when there is, effectively only one thing...the universe...or God...so no context or alternatives for chance/accident to operate.
Why not? You can claim a universe that's designed and engineered by a creator god, or you can reason your way to a universe that's essentially purposeless. I don't know why you plump for the former.
PS Still no news on you getting Paley's Watch arse-backwards by the way?
-
Vlad,
Why not? You can claim a universe that's designed and engineered by a creator god, or you can reason your way to a universe that's essentially purposeless. I don't know why you plump for the former.
PS Still no news on you getting Paley's Watch arse-backwards by the way?
It was actually your "little helpers" who started going on about design and engineering. I actually put a post suggesting we shouldn't look at it as an industrial process, after telling your "Little helpers" they seemed to be confusing evolution with biogenesis and universal creation something you seem to be repeating here.
Let me help you out. Evolution is a change in what exists. Creation is the provision of what there is.
There cannot IMV be unintention or accident if there is only one thing so I would say God or whatever could not have unintentionally or accidentally give rise to the universe. There is no context in which he can have an accident.
Sriram I would imagine is a monist which means the universe is one thing and so also has no context in which to have "An accident"...that wouldn't be inconsistent with an idea of universal intentionality.
And then there's you....A Cake-ist who argues that the universe is both a single thing and yet, somehow also a collection of things, whichever suits his argument.
Given then that I am not talking about design or engineering....who gives a crap about Paley?
-
It was actually your "little helpers" who started going on about design and engineering. I actually put a post suggesting we shouldn't look at it as an industrial process, after telling your "Little helpers" they seemed to be confusing evolution with biogenesis and universal creation something you seem to be repeating here.
Let me help you out. Evolution is a change in what exists. Creation is the provision of what there is.
I've never known any of the atheists/agnostics/ignostics here ever to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. It's always the theists who keep doing that.
-
Vlad,
It was actually your "little helpers" who started going on about design and engineering.
I don’t have any.
I actually put a post suggesting we shouldn't look at it as an industrial process, after telling your "Little helpers" they seemed to be confusing evolution with biogenesis and universal creation something you seem to be repeating here.
The word is abiogenesis (as I told you the last time you made this mistake) and no-one here has confused evolution with abiogenesis.
Let me help you out.
What makes you think you can help out someone who clearly knows more about the subject than you do?
Evolution is a change in what exists.
Sort of. It’s actually the emergence of novel properties via genetic mutations derived from the sexual reproduction and interactions with environment, but near enough.
Creation is the provision of what there is.
No, “creation” in the religious sense is shit some people make up superficially to explain to their satisfaction the existence of things while simultaneously special pleading away the same question about their various gods.
There cannot IMV be unintention or accident if there is only one thing so I would say God or whatever could not have unintentionally or accidentally give rise to the universe. There is no context in which he can have an accident.
There are no sound reasons to think that the existence of shews or elephants (or elephant shrews for that matter) or people is intentional or purposive – or at least no sound reasons that you’ve ever produced here.
Sriram I would imagine is a monist which means the universe is one thing and so also has no context in which to have "An accident"...that wouldn't be inconsistent with an idea of universal intentionality.
I have no idea what Sriram is. What I do know is that he’s unable to construct a logically cogent argument to justify the various truth claims he makes here.
And then there's you....A Cake-ist who argues that the universe is both a single thing and yet, somehow also a collection of things, whichever suits his argument.
A cricket match is a single thing. It’s also a collection of lots of separate things. Why is this difficult for you?
Given then that I am not talking about design or engineering....who gives a crap about Paley?
You should because it’s analogous to the crap argument you attempted. That you then ballsed up what Paley’s Watch tells you about the wrongheadedness of assuming complexity implies purposive creation doesn’t get you off that hook.
Try again.
-
Vlad,
I don’t have any.
The word is abiogenesis (as I told you the last time you made this mistake) and no-one here has confused evolution with abiogenesis.
What makes you think you can help out someone who clearly knows more about the subject than you do?
Sort of. It’s actually the emergence of novel properties via genetic mutations derived from the sexual reproduction and interactions with environment, but near enough.
No, “creation” in the religious sense is shit some people make up superficially to explain to their satisfaction the existence of things while simultaneously special pleading away the same question about their various gods.
There are no sound reasons to think that the existence of shews or elephants (or elephant shrews for that matter) or people is intentional or purposive – or at least no sound reasons that you’ve ever produced here.
I have no idea what Sriram is. What I do know is that he’s unable to construct a logically cogent argument to justify the various truth claims he makes here.
A cricket match is a single thing. It’s also a collection of lots of separate things. Why is this difficult for you?
You should because it’s analogous to the crap argument you attempted. That you then ballsed up what Paley’s Watch tells you about the wrongheadedness of assuming complexity implies purposive creation doesn’t get you off that hook.
Try again.
Two areas here where you contradict previous argument.
1. Your illusionism, where anything is explicable in terms of it's components therefore a cricket match IS only a collection of players and a wicket, according to how you have previously argued. Here you are refuting that
2. According to arguments where a trinity is really merely three gods and therefore illusory as a unity, a cricket match is merely a collection of players and a wicket.
So once again we see you changing your argument to suit.
What we still have is evolution mistaken for creation.
As far as Paley is concerned all I am saying is something that looks designed, could have been designed. Not "therefore designed"
If something is really a single thing, and is the only thing it has no context in which to do anything accidentally.
On your previous arguing a cricket match is just the illusion of a single entity,it really being a collection.
-
I've never known any of the atheists/agnostics/ignostics here ever to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. It's always the theists who keep doing that.
And yet we see atheists confusing evolution with creation here.
-
And yet we see atheists confusing evolution with creation here.
Is there such a thung as 'creation' to confuse evolution with?
-
Is there such a thung as 'creation' to confuse evolution with?
It doesn't matter. What's happening is still a confusion of concepts taking place.
-
It doesn't matter. What's happening is still a confusion of concepts taking place.
It matters because you present it as a fact. It isn't. I don't think anyone is confused between your unevifenced assertion and the fact and theory of evolution. I think you are unwilling to face up to the logical flaws in your unevidenced assertion, some of which can be pointed out using thr fscts of evolution, since your unevidenced assertion of creation also has built in assumptions of a intentional, involved entity which you think intervenes.
-
It matters because you present it as a fact. It isn't. I don't think anyone is confused between your unevifenced assertion and the fact and theory of evolution. I think you are unwilling to face up to the logical flaws in your unevidenced assertion, some of which can be pointed out using thr fscts of evolution, since your unevidenced assertion of creation also has built in assumptions of a intentional, involved entity which you think intervenes.
What "facts of evolution" do you think negate a creation?
If either the universe or God are a single entity unmoved by another then there is no context for the unintentional or accidental to occur.
-
Vlad,
Two areas here where you contradict previous argument.
1. Your illusionism, where anything is explicable in terms of it's components therefore a cricket match IS only a collection of players and a wicket, according to how you have previously argued. Here you are refuting that
You’re very confused. A cricket match is both a set of its component parts and activities, and a description of the whole event. I have no idea why you find this so hard to grasp – it seems very simple to me.
2. According to arguments where a trinity is really merely three gods and therefore illusory as a unity, a cricket match is merely a collection of players and a wicket.
I’ve haven't discussed the Trinity, but in any case if you want to assert such a thing as three entities that collectively you describe as a “Trinity” that’s fine. My chocolate bar consists of chocolate, caramel and nuts but it’s also called a Sneakers Bar. Where you fall apart is when you overreach into eliding your three parts somehow into one and the same thing. Or something. Who knows – it’s all incoherence at that point.
So once again we see you changing your argument to suit.
You opposing your own straw men versions of what I’ve said isn’t me changing my actual argument at all, and you should stop lying about this.
What we still have is evolution mistaken for creation.
No-one has done that, and you should stop lying about that too.
As far as Paley is concerned all I am saying is something that looks designed, could have been designed. Not "therefore designed"
You still have it arse-backwards – basically the same struggle you have with the burden of proof concept. Paley’s Watch merely tells you that the appearance of complexity does not imply purpose. That some objects – such as watches – are purposive is neither here nor there. It’s a non-point.
If something is really a single thing, and is the only thing it has no context in which to do anything accidentally.
Did this gibberish mean something in your head before you eructated it?
On your previous arguing a cricket match is just the illusion of a single entity,it really being a collection.
More lying isn’t getting you off the hook here. At one level of abstraction a cricket match is a single entity; at another it’s lots of people and equipment (and at another level it’s bajillions of sub-atomic particles too). Your fallacy of composition mistake is just to assume that the deterministic character of the components that comprise the universe implies that the universe itself must also be deterministic in character. Clocks are made of components, including springs. If you drop a spring it will bounce. Does that mean that if you drop a clock it will also bounce? Why not?
You will of course now run away from this as you always do, but that won’t make your basic mistake in reasoning go away.
-
Vlad,
And yet we see atheists confusing evolution with creation here.
And yet we see no such thing. Why are you still lying about this?
Tell you what – why not put up or shut up instead? Just cite an example of it and you’ll have made your point.
What’s stopping you?
-
What "facts of evolution" do you think negate a creation?
If either the universe or God are a single entity unmoved by another then there is no context for the unintentional or accidental to occur.
I didn't say the facts of evolution do negate a 'creation'. I said that there are facts of evolution which point out inconsistencies in one suggested idea of creation. That one being an interventionist god that is loving and deserving of worship.
-
Vlad,
What "facts of evolution" do you think negate a creation?
He didn’t say that. What he said was that some of the facts of evolution “point out” some of the logical errors in your creation myth.
If either the universe or God are a single entity unmoved by another then there is no context for the unintentional or accidental to occur.
Drivel. “Unintentional” means “not done with intention or on purpose”. A creationist (as you now seem to have become) asserts that a god intended and engineered, say, our existence as a purposive act. Decisions were made and consequent acts occurred. There is no such intentionality though with the playing out of a non-purposive universe.
-
Vlad,
He didn’t say that. What he said was that some of the facts of evolution “point out” some of the logical errors in your creation myth.
Drivel. “Unintentional” means “not done with intention or on purpose”. A creationist (as you now seem to have become) asserts that a god intended and engineered, say, our existence as a purposive act. Decisions were made and consequent acts occurred. There is no such intentionality though with the playing out of a non-purposive universe.
There is I'm afraid no scope for randomness or external determination of your action if you are the soul entity. There are no degrees of freedom whatsoever for what you are suggesting Hillside. The universe cannot, if it is the soul entity, act purposelessly....ditto God. There is absolutely no room for chance.
Where you do have chance you have multiple entities or possibilities. That cannot be with a single entity.
Safest position IMHO. Is a created universe contingent on a creator.
-
Vlad,
There is I'm afraid no scope for randomness or external determination of your action if you are the soul entity. There are no degrees of freedom whatsoever for what you are suggesting Hillside. The universe cannot, if it is the soul entity, act purposelessly....ditto God. There is absolutely no room for chance.
Whoosh!
Once again: “Unintentional” means “not done with purpose or intention”. “Intentional” on the other hand means “done with purpose or intention (and perhaps then acting on it)”. A godless universe would be the former; your god-present universe would be the latter.
Can you see the fundamental difference between them now?
Where you do have chance you have multiple entities or possibilities. That cannot be with a single entity.
Nope, no idea. What incompetently formed, half-baked notion are you even trying to express here?
Safest position IMHO. Is a created universe contingent on a creator.
Except for that claim to stand you have all your work ahead of you still first to demonstrate that the universe even is created, and then to establish why the supposed creator could be not created. Good luck with both preconditions though.
-
And yet we see atheists confusing evolution with creation here.
Really? Which atheists? Which posts?
-
Vlad,
Whoosh!
Once again: “Unintentional” means “not done with purpose or intention”. “Intentional” on the other hand means “done with purpose or intention (and perhaps then acting on it)”. A godless universe would be the former; your god-present universe would be the latter.
Can you see the fundamental difference between them now?
Nope, no idea. What incompetently formed, half-baked notion are you even trying to express here?
Except for that claim to stand you have all your work ahead of you still first to demonstrate that the universe even is created, and then to establish why the supposed creator could be not created. Good luck with both preconditions though.
See the definition of unintentional and you come across the term accidental. And of course, visa versa.
If there is but a single entity there is no context for an accident or chance.
-
See the definition of accidental and you come across the term accidental. And of course, visa versa.
If there is but a single entity there is no context for an accident or chance.
https://youtu.be/iCDfjcclStA?si=uRkVkhryg09UKfyO
-
Vlad,
See the definition of unintentional and you come across the term accidental. And of course, visa versa.
If there is but a single entity there is no context for an accident or chance.
With a nod to Eric Morecambe, you seem you to be using all the right words but not necessarily in the right order.
Was there a cogent thought in there somewhere struggling to get out, or are you reduced now to only word salad?
-
Vlad,
With a nod to Eric Morecambe, you seem you to be using all the right words but not necessarily in the right order.
Was there a cogent thought in there somewhere struggling to get out, or are you reduced now to only word salad?
I think that's overly complimentary.
-
NS,
I think that's overly complimentary.
I know, but I'm in a generous mood today...
-
https://theconversation.com/the-mystery-of-consciousness-shows-there-may-be-a-limit-to-what-science-alone-can-achieve-225034
-
Vlad,
https://theconversation.com/the-mystery-of-consciousness-shows-there-may-be-a-limit-to-what-science-alone-can-achieve-225034
What point do you think you're making?
-
https://theconversation.com/the-mystery-of-consciousness-shows-there-may-be-a-limit-to-what-science-alone-can-achieve-225034
That article is a mess. This paragraph alone should be ringing alarm bells:
For all of these reasons and more, science is rightly celebrated and revered. However, a healthy pro-science attitude is not the same thing as “scientism”, which is the view that the scientific method is the only way to establish truth. As the problem of consciousness is revealing, there may be a limit to what we can learn through science alone.
Science isn't a religion: it is not something you revere. The scientific method is the only way we have of establishing the truth with respect to the real world. And the fact that science doesn't have a good model for consciousness (yet) does not mean it is not amenable to the scientific method. This is just the argument from personal incredulity.
The idea that the physicalist and panpsychist positions are equally undecidable is ridiculous. The physicalists have got some evidence in favour of their position. They observe that new consciousness arises when a new brain develops and it goes away when the brain dies. That seems pretty good circumstantial evidence if nothing else.
-
That article is a mess. This paragraph alone should be ringing alarm bells:
Science isn't a religion: it is not something you revere. The scientific method is the only way we have of establishing the truth with respect to the real world. And the fact that science doesn't have a good model for consciousness (yet) does not mean it is not amenable to the scientific method. This is just the argument from personal incredulity.
The idea that the physicalist and panpsychist positions are equally undecidable is ridiculous. The physicalists have got some evidence in favour of their position. They observe that new consciousness arises when a new brain develops and it goes away when the brain dies. That seems pretty good circumstantial evidence if nothing else.
Science being the only means of establishing truth?
Your assertion so your burden.
First of , Where's the scientific data that proves the truth of your assertion?
Cue Hillside's accusation of a straw man here.
-
Science being the only means of establishing truth?
Your assertion so your burden.
Science is the only means we have of establishing the truth with respect to the real world. You missed that bit out when you quoted me.
How do I justify my assertion? By observing that there are no other known means of establishing the truth with respect to the real world. If you have got one, why don't you tell us what it is.
-
Vlad,
Science being the only means of establishing truth?
About the observable world, so far as we know yes. More generally, logic (of which science is a sub-set) is the only known method of establishing truths. It is of course theoretically possible that someone has come up with another method and decided to keep it a secret, but that’s a point with no practical significance.
Your assertion so your burden.
See above.
First of , Where's the scientific data that proves the truth of your assertion?
What makes you think there needs to be one?
Cue Hillside's accusation of a straw man here.
Yes – the only method anyone has brought to our attention and the only method full stop are not the same thing. The latter is the straw man version you've attempted here.
-
Science is the only means we have of establishing the truth with respect to the real world. You missed that bit out when you quoted me.
Sorry, I was assuming everyone Knew we were talking about the real world. Let me correct it then and ask you for scientific evidence that science is the only means of establishing the truth with respect to the real world.
How do I justify my assertion?
The only way, according to you, to do so....by providing the scientific evidence.
-
Vlad,
About the observable world, so far as we know yes. More generally, logic (of which science is a sub-set) is the only known method of establishing truths. It is of course theoretically possible that someone has come up with another method and decided to keep it a secret, but that’s a point with no practical significance.
See above.
What makes you think there needs to be one?
Yes – the only method anyone has brought to our attention and the only method full stop are not the same thing. The latter is the straw man version you've attempted here.
Oh observable world is it. It didn’t take long to see that appeal to the the term “real world” was a crock.
The Atheist Father Brown of Saffron Walden once again rescues a hapless parishioner.
-
Vlad,
Oh observable world is it. It didn’t take long to see that appeal to the the term “real world” was a crock.
The Atheist Father Brown of Saffron Walden once again rescues a hapless parishioner.
Science verifies the observable world – by observing it. Absent another method of verification, the rest is on a spectrum from just guessing ("God" etc) to logically cogent hypotheses (the Higgs-Boson pre-CERN etc). In other words, if it isn't observable we cannot know that it's real.
What point did you even think you were making here?
-
Sorry, I was assuming everyone Knew we were talking about the real world. Let me correct it then and ask you for scientific evidence that science is the only means of establishing the truth with respect to the real world.
I already answered that question. We observe no other method of establishing the truth about the real world that works.
-
I already answered that question. We observe no other method of establishing the truth about the real world that works.
Inadequate I'm afraid. Many observe that mathematics is true and yet for many mathematical truths there is no supporting scientific evidence.
What you don't have is scientific evidence that science is the only way of establishing truth in the real world.
As Bluehillside reminds us your error was to treat the empirical world as the real world.
-
Inadequate I'm afraid. Many observe that mathematics is true and yet for many mathematical truths there is no supporting scientific evidence.
And no expectation that there would be, because mathematics doesn't make claims about the world, it makes claims about numbers. You can apply those numbers, and those claims, in certain circumstances, to model things in the real world.
What you don't have is scientific evidence that science is the only way of establishing truth in the real world.
And, again, who is claiming that there is? It's the only reliable one we have at the moment - if you want to add something to the options, crack on. All you need is a methodology and some demonstration that it's consistently reliable within readily understood limits.
As Bluehillside reminds us your error was to treat the empirical world as the real world.
Whereas your error was to, once again, straw man people's position. No-one is saying that no alternatives to science are possible; however, where claims are contrary to established science that's problematic, and to discount science because it's not absolute but to offer no alternative but guesswork is just intellectually bankrupt.
O.
-
Inadequate I'm afraid. Many observe that mathematics is true and yet for many mathematical truths there is no supporting scientific evidence.
Again you omit my qualification of "the real world". I didn't tack that qualification on for fun.
Mathematics, by itself, tells us nothing about the real world. In fact mathematics is tautological. It doesn't tell us anything.
As an example, does mathematics tell us that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees? If your mathematical education stopped in school, you might say yes. But it actually doesn't What mathematics tells us is "if this set of five axioms (https://www.math.brown.edu/tbanchof/Beyond3d/chapter9/section01.html) are all true then the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees". How can we know that the set of five axioms are true in the real world? We can draw some triangles and measure the angles. This is doing science. (Spoiler: it turns out that in general, the angles of triangles don't add up to 180 degrees in the real world).
All mathematical theorems are really like this. They are all based on a certain set of axioms that are just assumed to be true but need not necessarily apply in the real world.
What you don't have is scientific evidence that science is the only way of establishing truth in the real world.
I do. First of all we note that science is extraordinarily successful. Second, we note there aren't any other methods, or if there are, people like you seem unbelievably reluctant to tell us what they are.
You could win this whole argument simply by coming up with an alternate method to science but you won't because, if you could you would have done it by now.
Edit: that's not to say that there is no alternate method but you don't know what it is and neither does anybody else. So for now, science is the only reliable method we have of finding out about the real world.