Alpha

[Brownie]

What?  On the R&E Forum?  I won't ask for his nickname.

[Rhiannon]

What?  On the R&E Forum?  I won't ask for his nickname.

Sorry I meant here, where I live. Little-Inbreeding-on-the-Dungheap.

[jeremyp]

It is only spectacularly successful within that range of reality that it relates to. 

Which is pretty much all of reality.

There is sufficient evidence to suggest that this isn't the sole aspect of reality.

What evidence is that?
 

The problem with this argument

I didn't make an argument, I stated some facts.

Science is the the only approach to finding out about reality I know of - FACT.

I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist - FACT.

I can't think of any other approaches - FACT
 
I don't just accept your assertions on your say so - FACT

If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is - FACT.
 

As I've said before, the problem with the discussions on this and other boards is that protaganists come to the debate with all-but exclusive understandings of life.

No, the problem with this discussion is that you do not understand what science is and you do not have anything that supports your assertions. Yet again, you have been given an opportunity to do so, but instead, you hand out mealy mouthed nonsense about "arguments". I can write down how science works in four lines. Let's see you write down your alleged alternative approach.

Here's science:

1 Guess a hypothesis

2 Work out the consequences for the real world

3 Test the real world to see if the consequences are true

4 If the real world does not match your predicted consequences, your hypothesis is wrong.

[Bubbles]

Well I detest things that give simple smug off the peg answers.

Example: who were the first man and women? Only correct answer Adam and Eve.

Which get you to mindlessly repeat  such stuff,  and think the only thing you could possibly want is eternal life. 

My ordained friend said alpha was something I should avoid.

So I did.

I've done one such course online, and the teacher ended up writing me a long letter saying he understood where I was coming from etc etc. Because I don't accept the assumptions and it's never an open minded questioning.

There is no point in me going to anything where the answers are often really simplistic.

It's not so much exploring things as being told what to believe, without question.

My ordained friend knows the sort of thing I don't like, which is why she said to avoid the alpha course.

Says it all, really.

[Bubbles]

It's a shame they don't do a Alpha course that isn't religious, but deals with a wide range of viewpoints.

What is important and really matters in life, from individual perspectives?

But then it wouldn't be Christian I suppose.

[Shaker]

It's a shame they don't do a Alpha course that isn't religious, but deals with a wide range of viewpoints.

What is important and really matters in life, from individual perspectives?

But then it wouldn't be Christian I suppose.

I said that very thing back in #58. I'd sign up for that like a shot.

You'd have to get some philosophers on board to structure the course and construct the materials, etc.

I wonder what the take-up would be?

[jeremyp]

How do they recruit for it, I've never seen it advertised or anything anywhere.

Do you not remember this

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/10/is-it-okay-to-write-on-alpha-course-ads.html

[Rhiannon]

I said that very thing back in #58. I'd sign up for that like a shot.

You'd have to get some philosphers on board to structure the course and construct the materials, etc.

I wonder what the take-up would be?

A village near me has a philosophy club running alongside the usual bowls, cricket, WI etc. I guess it's possible if you have at least one person with a reasonable knowledge and enough others willing to read, dig, explore and share.

[Nearly Sane]

A village near me has a philosophy club running alongside the usual bowls, cricket, WI etc. I guess it's possible if you have at least one person with a reasonable knowledge and enough others willing to read, dig, explore and share.

I'm not sure you even need that. There are a number of good primers on philosophy and something like Philosophy Bites, or Julian Baggini's stuff, could be used as discussion points. You just need an interest. We make philosophy too hard.

[Rhiannon]

I'm not sure you even need that. There are a number of good primers on philosophy and something like Philosophy Bites, or Julian Baggini's stuff, could be used as discussion points. You just need an interest. We make philosophy too hard.

You may well be right. Surely we're all philosophers, if we stop for long enough to think and ask?

[Bubbles]

I said that very thing back in #58. I'd sign up for that like a shot.

You'd have to get some philosphers on board to structure the course and construct the materials, etc.

I wonder what the take-up would be?

Quite high I would think.

 

[Bubbles]

You may well be right. Surely we're all philosophers, if we stop for long enough to think and ask?

Yes, and sometimes it's nice to hear differing POV, and also some,  we can very much relate to.

🌹

[Nearly Sane]

You may well be right. Surely we're all philosophers, if we stop for long enough to think and ask?

Pretty much. There's a lot of philosophy done on this forum when we stop with the trying to win stuff.

The problem sometimes with knowledge is that it makes it hard to write without assuming similar knowledge from others, and people don't always have time to avoid the short cuts that that allows. It's much easier to get the level right when you are talking to someone in the pub, than on a board. And you also have the difficulty that not everyone posting on topics has the same aim to just have a discussion.

[Rhiannon]

Pretty much. There's a lot of philosophy done on this forum when we stop with the trying to win stuff.

The problem sometimes with knowledge is that it makes it hard to write without assuming similar knowledge from others, and people don't always have time to avoid the short cuts that that allows. It's much easier to get the level right when you are talking to someone in the pub, than on a board. And you also have the difficulty that not everyone posting on topics has the same aim to just have a discussion.

Yes. We have some great minds here in our tiny corner of cyberspace and my thinking has both expanded and become sharper as a result of engaging with the ideas debated here. My life would be the poorer for not having experienced it.

But in the pub would undoubtedly be easier.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes. We have some great minds here in our tiny corner of cyberspace and my thinking has both expanded and become sharper as a result of engaging with the ideas debated here. My life would be the poorer for not having experienced it.

But in the pub would undoubtedly be easier.

I wonder whether an equivalent to the faith sharing board would work. A place where we look to have just discussions without the trying to win thing. Theoretically we could achieve it with a bit of self discipline but that's hard to ensure.

[Rhiannon]

I wonder whether an equivalent to the faith sharing board would work. A place where we look to have just discussions without the trying to win thing. Theoretically we could achieve it with a bit of self discipline but that's hard to ensure.

Exactly the same thing was going through my mind, NS. Has to be worth a go.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is pretty much all of reality.
What evidence is that?
  I didn't make an argument, I stated some facts.

Science is the the only approach to finding out about reality I know of - FACT.

I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist - FACT.

I can't think of any other approaches - FACT
 
I don't just accept your assertions on your say so - FACT

If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is - FACT.
 No, the problem with this discussion is that you do not understand what science is and you do not have anything that supports your assertions. Yet again, you have been given an opportunity to do so, but instead, you hand out mealy mouthed nonsense about "arguments". I can write down how science works in four lines. Let's see you write down your alleged alternative approach.

Here's science:

1 Guess a hypothesis

2 Work out the consequences for the real world

3 Test the real world to see if the consequences are true

4 If the real world does not match your predicted consequences, your hypothesis is wrong.

Science is methodological naturalism not an ontology....you're talking rubbish.

While your about it get your overinflated antitheist proprietorial sense of entitlement off OUR science.

[Shaker]

Ooooh, get her.

[Brownie]

Exactly the same thing was going through my mind, NS. Has to be worth a go.

Definitely.  When can we start?

[Sebastian Toe]

....... OUR science.

......which is what, exactly?

[jeremyp]

Science is methodological naturalism not an ontology....you're talking rubbish.

I listed some facts. Which of them do you think are not true?

Explain in your own words without using big ones that you do not understand why you think my characterisation of science is wrong.

[wigginhall]

I think Vlad is ignoring the fact that although science itself consists of various methods, grounded in naturalism, it is also the basis for various philosophical positions such as scientific realism.   This states roughly that science describes reality. 

After that, as jeremy has outlined, you are presented with the question as to which other methods are going to be used to investigate stuff.    Are there any?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think Vlad is ignoring the fact that although science itself consists of various methods, grounded in naturalism, it is also the basis for various philosophical positions such as scientific realism.

Really, What is the logical pathway which links methodological naturalism with scientific realism then?

In other words your so keen on methodologies to establish philosophical positions.....what is the methodology which establishes scientific realism?

[wigginhall]

Really, What is the logical pathway which links methodological naturalism with scientific realism then?

In other words your so keen on methodologies to establish philosophical positions.....what is the methodology which establishes scientific realism?

It's an inference from the success of science, or if you like, an inference to the best explanation. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's an inference from the success of science, or if you like, an inference to the best explanation.

Science is not an ontology. I suspect you are specially pleading since all kinds of things can be inferred from science.

Again what is the methodology for establishing it not merely inferring it.

Science is successful in that it is good at what it does. The argument you are making is circular therefore. By what methodology do you get from the success of science as science to scientific realism.

What you see as the strongest link is a bit king's new clothes.

Besides, in terms of success Maths trumps science and is a better guide and predictor for the universe.