The 'Truth'

[Shaker]

So, how do they differ from science and scientists, Floo?

The latter have a methodology in place for what they do and evidence besides.

What with you knowing so many scientists I'd have thought you would have known this already.

[Stranger]

So, how do they differ from science and scientists, Floo?

Oh, I dunno... Let me think.... oh yes; evidence.

[Hope]

Oh, I dunno... Let me think.... oh yes; evidence.

No, the 'evidence' is subjective in that it is both found and mediated by humanity.  We don't know whether it is the full picture since, as many here have already pointed out, it doesn't deal with things like right and wrong.

[Shaker]

No, the 'evidence' is subjective in that it is both found and mediated by humanity.

Who else? Courgettes?

We don't know whether it is the full picture since, as many here have already pointed out, it doesn't deal with things like right and wrong.

Your question has been answered - suck it up instead of blethering on about right and wrong.

[Hope]

The latter have a methodology in place for what they do and evidence besides.

What with you knowing so many scientists I'd have thought you would have known this already.

I don't disagree that the latter have a methodology, but does science all of reality?  We've already been told by folk like yourself that it doesn't deal with right and wrong, suggesting that it isn't a comprehensive understanding.

[Hope]

Who else? Courgettes?Your question has been answered - suck it up instead of blethering on about right and wrong.

Sorry, Shakes, I'm only using the arguments of those who like to diss my position by pointing out that even they admit that science doesn't cover the whole of reality.  If anyone's argument has been answered, its yours.

[Shaker]

I don't disagree that the latter have a methodology, but does science all of reality?

It do all of reality.

We've already been told by folk like yourself that it doesn't deal with right and wrong, suggesting that it isn't a comprehensive understanding.

Your question about the difference between religios of the kind Floo mentioned and science/scientists had nothing to do with this and has been answered.

[Shaker]

Sorry, Shakes, I'm only using the arguments of those who like to diss my position by pointing out that even they admit that science doesn't cover the whole of reality.

Those who diss your position, as you call it, quite rightly and correctly point out that you are unable to substantiate your belief that something else covers it apart from science - you never having managed to provide an appropriate methodology here.

As for those elusive other places where you claim to have done so, well ... more said the better.

If anyone's argument has been answered, its yours.

Wasn't aware that I'd made one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Sorry, Shakes, I'm only using the arguments of those who like to diss my position...

People "diss" your position by pointing out where you make logical errors - your reliance on the negative proof fallacy for example. If I were you I'd be pleased when they did so because I'd learn from that, wouldn't make the same blunders again, and would attempt more cogent arguments the next time round.

You on the other hand just ignore the corrections and carry on making the same mistakes.

...by pointing out that even they admit that science doesn't cover the whole of reality.

People know that - that's why they still do science so as to discover more. If though you actually meant something like, "there are parts of reality that science could never address" then by all means demonstrate its existence and propose a reliable and robust alternative method to investigate it. 

If anyone's argument has been answered, its yours.

Sadly not.

[Rhiannon]

I don't disagree that the latter have a methodology, but does science all of reality?  We've already been told by folk like yourself that it doesn't deal with right and wrong, suggesting that it isn't a comprehensive understanding.

If science covered the 'all of reality' (whatever that is) we wouldn't still be doing science. We're still doing science because we have much to learn and it's pretty good at turning up answers.

I'm not sure why you think 'right and wrong' are in any way 'reality'. But whatever they are, centuries of relying on religion to figure it out have done us few favours and the situation is not improving (although the ingenious ways in which we can annihilate ourselves have). It'd be nice for the religious to argue that had they engaged with science more instead of running scared from it we'd somehow not have the WMD that we do, but given that the fundie right in the States see a nuclear apocalypse as part of being 'rapture ready' and there are fears around IS and a nuclear drone strike, it's not really that likely, is it?

[Gordon]

No, the 'evidence' is subjective in that it is both found and mediated by humanity.  We don't know whether it is the full picture since, as many here have already pointed out, it doesn't deal with things like right and wrong.

As usual you get it wrong.

Some forms of evidence are objective facts, and remain so whether or not humans have subjective views regarding these facts. So it is a fact that humans cannot fly unaided if they are under the influence of gravity and whether or not you subjectively agree with this is irrelevant to what will actually happen if you decide to test it by stepping out of a 5th floor window whilst you are wearing nothing but a smile.

'Right' and 'Wrong' aren't facts in themselves: they are opinions (informed or otherwise), so that the best science can do is investigate what people cite as their rationale for holding these opinions - at best commonly shared moral opinions are axioms.

You also seem confused that science doesn't currently know everything that is potentially knowable but this has always been the case since science is an on-going incremental process involving existing knowledge and theory - so that it doesn't currently know everything that is potentially knowable is in no sense an issue, as the history of progressive scientific progress clearly shows. No doubt there is much still to be learned via systematic and disciplined investigation.

You, however, seem to be misrepresenting the scope of science to claim that there is some other aspect to reality that will forever be closed to science but you can't provide any method based on knowledge or theory to substantiate your claim since if this 'extra-reality', for want of a better term, can never be knowable then you can't know (as in having knowledge) that it exists: so that to claim it does, as you do, is a contradiction in terms.

All you are really demonstrating, albeit that you are unaware that you are, is your inordinate fondness for fallacies.         

[Stranger]

No, the 'evidence' is subjective in that it is both found and mediated by humanity.

No, evidence, in the scientific sense and in the only sense that is important in assessing matters of objective truth, is objective, To be strict about it, it is inter-subjective (Popper); that is, independently verifiable by different individuals.

We don't know whether it is the full picture since, as many here have already pointed out...

I'm sure we don't have a full picture, but that doesn't justify using subjective notions to determine matters of objective fact. If we did that we would end up believing contradictory things, which would be confusing.

If you have some other way of inter-subjectively testing ideas that can lead to your god, then there are lots of people waiting for you to produce it...

...it doesn't deal with things like right and wrong.

Probably because they are not matters of objective fact - they are defined by people; individually and collectively.

[~TW~]

No, I just choose not to talk to talk to you, TW. I've had more productive conversations with a crisp packet.

So you talk to crisp that figures.

~TW~

[Rhiannon]

At least a crisp packet's real.

[floo]

At least a crisp packet's real.

Exactly!

[Hope]

No, evidence, in the scientific sense and in the only sense that is important in assessing matters of objective truth, is objective, To be strict about it, it is inter-subjective (Popper); that is, independently verifiable by different individuals.

But still subjective in that, by its own supporters' admission, only deals with some mof the the issues that impact on human life.  As I said previously, it doesn't purport to deal with the concepts of morality. aesthetics or the use of science, all of  which, despite Shakes' determination to dismiss the first as irrelevant, have major impacts on people's lives.  Nor does it purport to support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.

I'm sure we don't have a full picture, but that doesn't justify using subjective notions to determine matters of objective fact. If we did that we would end up believing contradictory things, which would be confusing.

You mean like politics?   

If you have some other way of inter-subjectively testing ideas that can lead to your god, then there are lots of people waiting for you to produce it...

As I've and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, there are such methodologies - one such being experience - but they aren't generally acceptable within a scientific, naturalistic framework, as they overstretch the boundaries of that framework for some people.  The result is that, whenever the evidence and methodology are put forward, they are immediately dismissed by those who rely solely on the scientic/naturalistic approach.

Probably because they are not matters of objective fact - they are defined by people; individually and collectively.

Yet there appear to be universal standards that exist even when the individual or collective have lived in isolation for centuries and more.  Remember that universality is one aspect of objectivity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

That’s an awful lot of stupid to cram into one post.

But still subjective in that, by its own supporters' admission, only deals with some mof the the issues that impact on human life.  As I said previously, it doesn't purport to deal with the concepts of morality. aesthetics or the use of science, all of  which, despite Shakes' determination to dismiss the first as irrelevant, have major impacts on people's lives.  Nor does it purport to support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.

Of course it “deals” with those things as natural phenomena. How far it’s gone towards explaining them is moot, but there’s nothing conceptually to stop if from doing so. And it’s indifferent to claims of supernatural entities for the perfectly good reason that those who believe in them can only express their beliefs as white noise. It’s not that science can’t address them but something else can – nothing can, because there’s no cogent reason to think they exist in the first place. 

You mean like politics?

Or anything else – people hold contradictory opinions about lots of things. So what? 

As I've and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, there are such methodologies - one such being experience - but they aren't generally acceptable within a scientific, naturalistic framework, as they overstretch the boundaries of that framework for some people.  The result is that, whenever the evidence and methodology are put forward, they are immediately dismissed by those who rely solely on the scientic/naturalistic approach.

Utter bollocks. “Experience” requires the attribution of cause and - so far at least – you’ve never once managed even to propose a method to distinguish your attribution of “God” as the cause of your experience from someone else’s attribution of Thor or pixies as the cause for their experience. Why then should anyone take your claim more seriously than theirs? Should we accept all of them as true on the basis of personal assertions, or none of them?

Yet there appear to be universal standards that exist even when the individual or collective have lived in isolation for centuries and more.  Remember that universality is one aspect of objectivity.

That’s global not universal, and of course there are similarities – we’re the same species, and behaviours like reciprocal altruism are evolutionarily advantageous no matter who or where we happen to be.

Good grief!

[Stranger]

But still subjective in that, by its own supporters' admission, only deals with some mof the the issues that impact on human life.

Not dealing with everything doesn't mean that it is subjective, it means that it doesn't deal with everything. By an odd coincidence, the things it doesn't deal with are subjective.

As I said previously, it doesn't purport to deal with the concepts of morality. aesthetics or the use of science, all of  which, despite Shakes' determination to dismiss the first as irrelevant, have major impacts on people's lives.

Those things being subjective. Subjective things do impact people's lives but that is outside the scope of science because it deals with objective evidence.

As I've and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, there are such methodologies - one such being experience - but they aren't generally acceptable within a scientific, naturalistic framework, as they overstretch the boundaries of that framework for some people.  The result is that, whenever the evidence and methodology are put forward, they are immediately dismissed by those who rely solely on the scientic/naturalistic approach.

What do you mean by "experience"? Subjective experiences are not, by their nature, inter-subjectively testable.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with falling outside of some "naturalistic framework". If you have a genuinely inter-subjective test, that anybody can use and obtain the same result, then spell it out.

I'll not hold my breath.

Yet there appear to be universal standards that exist even when the individual or collective have lived in isolation for centuries and more.  Remember that universality is one aspect of objectivity.

That is probably to do with the fact that we are humans - that doesn't make our notions of right and wrong objectively real in the sense that they exist apart from human minds.

[Shaker]

But still subjective in that, by its own supporters' admission, only deals with some mof the the issues that impact on human life.  As I said previously, it doesn't purport to deal with the concepts of morality. aesthetics or the use of science, all of  which, despite Shakes' determination to dismiss the first as irrelevant

Irrelevant to the earlier part of this thread, certainly - posts #74, #75 and #77. It was only in #77 that you brought up right and wrong, your earlier question having been so resoundingly answered as to leave you with no comeback or wiggle room but to introduce something irrelevant to the discussion.

It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.

Unless you're a thoroughgoing solipsist or floridly psychotic (one and the same thing, perhaps ...) natural phenomena are a given. We encounter a world of stuff doing things from the moment of our exit from the womb - and, possibly, some time before that point. So that's the world we live in. Remember that it's those, like you, who propose non-natural phenomena - non-stuff doing things - who bear the burden of proof of demonstrating to others why the idea should be given head room.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The latter have a methodology in place for what they do and evidence besides.

What with you knowing so many scientists I'd have thought you would have known this already.

Yes. Unlike a tub thumping antitheist like herself Shakey miducks

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Irrelevant to the earlier part of this thread, certainly - posts #74, #75 and #77. It was only in #77 that you brought up right and wrong, your earlier question having been so resoundingly answered as to leave you with no comeback or wiggle room but to introduce something irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you're a thoroughgoing solipsist or floridly psychotic (one and the same thing, perhaps ...) natural phenomena are a given. We encounter a world of stuff doing things from the moment of our exit from the womb - and, possibly, some time before that point. So that's the world we live in. Remember that it's those, like you, who propose non-natural phenomena - non-stuff doing things - who bear the burden of proof of demonstrating to others why the idea should be given head room.

Science is not scientism Shaker.

[Shaker]

Uh oh. Isms ahoy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Uh oh. Isms ahoy.

Dont be such a philistine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Uh oh. Isms ahoy.

Don't sweat it my friend - Trollboy not only relies entirely on straw men versions of what people post, he even goes so far as to re-define terms and then attacks people supposedly for subscribing to his personal re-definitions rather than to the actual meanings. "Scientism" for example is one of his favourite dishonesties: he re-invents it to mean something like "science is the only means there can ever be to discover anything" rather than its actual meaning of "the only means we have reliably and consistently to investigate and test the material phenomena we appear to encounter, mediated by intersubjective experience".

Hard to know whether he even knows the real meaning of the terms he abuses but corrupts because he's just a troll, or whether he can't stand the notion of uncertainty so is compelled to lie so as to fit the world of hid his dullard literalism. He runs into the same problems with morality for example - if it's not universally mandated then it's not "proper" morality or some such arse gravy, but there it is either way.

Me, I decided not to reply to his trolling until he posted without lying. It's been weeks now, and I've had no cause to reply yet.

Funny that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

Don't sweat it my friend - Trollboy not only relies entirely on straw men versions of what people post, he even goes so far as to re-define terms and then attacks people supposedly for subscribing to his personal re-definitions rather than to the actual meanings. "Scientism" for example is one of his favourite dishonesties: he re-invents it to mean something like "science is the only means there can ever be to discover anything" rather than its actual meaning of "the only means we have reliably and consistently to investigate and test the material phenomena we appear to encounter, mediated by intersubjective experience".

Hard to know whether he even knows the real meaning of the terms he abuses but corrupts because he's just a troll, or whether he can't stand the notion of uncertainty so is compelled to lie so as to fit the world of hid his dullard literalism. He runs into the same problems with morality for example - if it's not universally mandated then it's not "proper" morality or some such arse gravy, but there it is either way.

Me, I decided not to reply to his trolling until he posted without lying. It's been weeks now, and I've had no cause to reply yet.

Funny that.

Unfortunately for you readers are at liberty to check definitions of scientism to see if they tally with your meaning or mine.

As an anti antitheist though I have to take my hat off to you in your taking the piss out of antitheists.