Originally posted by PenguinA book you might enjoy is "What is this thing called Science" by A. F. Chalmers. It is an investigation of both the scientific method, along with the historical alternatives used, with the philosophical reasoning behind rejecting those alternatives. A very good book, with an excellent section on Popperism.
Ok, so I have now finished listening to 'Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It', a lecture series presented by Steven L. Goldman. Its homepage is at [http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1235&pc=Science%20and%20Mathematics] You can download it for $35 (though I have heard rumours that it can be found on some strange system c ...[text shortened]... ffective tool we have for dealing with experience.
--- Penguin.[/b]
Originally posted by Penguin"The best method we have" accepts the possibility of a better way whereas "the best method there is" is a dogmatic statement that says catagorically that there can be no better way. Sounds like religion to me.
Difference without a distinction, really.
Difference with an important distinction, really. "The best method we have" accepts the possibility of a better way whereas "the best method there is" is a dogmatic statement that says catagorically that there can be no better way. Sounds like religion to me.
The man of God shall live by fa ...[text shortened]... at any given religion is an accurate model of our experience of reality?
--- Penguin.
While not here endorsed, this stance is exactly the viewpoint I have put concerted effort toward exposing. There are many posters herein whose position on science demand science act as a religion: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Yes but the trouble with that is that you have no way of knowing whether you are utterly wrong.
May I introduce you to the Bible?
Religion just makes its statements and says "Accept them. No further investigation is required.".
Statements such as this are paritally responsible for my characterization of Christianity as decidedly un-religious.
They cannot all be right and yet they all tell us to have faith that their particular set of statements is The Truth.
And science says (or refuses to say) anything whatsoever about Truth, instead concerning itself only with physical reality. In fact, in shameful cowardice, science doesn't even concern itself for the biggest question: how did this physical reality all come to be?
How can we have any 'faith' that any given religion is an accurate model of our experience of reality?
Again, may I introduce you to the Bible?
Originally posted by agrysonThanks for the recommendation.
A book you might enjoy is "What is this thing called Science" by A. F. Chalmers. It is an investigation of both the scientific method, along with the historical alternatives used, with the philosophical reasoning behind rejecting those alternatives. A very good book, with an excellent section on Popperism.
Originally posted by serigadoYes, but religion doesn't auto-criticize it self. It has a dogma. And Religion is not a quest for truth. It's an answer for truth, an unquestioned one.
Perhaps we're not hearing each other exactly. Both positions have been employed by those who use their knowledge within their respective fields for the purpose of gaining/keeping power. I subscribe to neither.
[/b]
We were talking about the best method to comprehend reality, not what you would do with that knowledge.
Auto-critique is basic in ...[text shortened]... ed by the instruments of one's choice.
So what? Doesn't stop from being our best shot.[/b]
Again, one of the reasons I do not subscribe to a religious viewpoint.
So what? Doesn't stop from being our best shot.
For one, it assumes (really, presumes) one is able to ask all the pertinent questions.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhile not here endorsed, this stance is exactly the viewpoint I have put concerted effort toward exposing. There are many posters herein whose position on science demand science act as a religion: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
[b]"The best method we have" accepts the possibility of a better way whereas "the best method there is" is a dogmatic statement that says catagorically that there can be no better way. Sounds like religion to me.
While not here endorsed, this stance is exactly the viewpoint I have put concerted effort toward exposing. There are many posters he urate model of our experience of reality?[/b]
Again, may I introduce you to the Bible?[/b]
But we are discussing the Science Wars lectures, not what some posters here may happen to think. What people on this forum think makes no difference to what science can really tell us.
May I introduce you to the Bible?
You may but maybe you should also introduce yourself to the Koran, the Eddas, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, the Tipitaka, the Principia Discordia, the Vedas, the Tanakh and Talmud, the Spirits Book, the Book of the SubGenius, the Daozang, the Avesta collection and probably many others.
All of these outlooks share with the scientific outlook that they canot give use UNC-Truth. Unlike the scientific method though, they all (including the Christian Bible) fail to give us PCP-truth either. They are all as accurate as each other and they are all less accurate than the scientific method.
Statements such as this are paritally responsible for my characterization of Christianity as decidedly un-religious.
Christianity encourages us to test its statements? I think not! Certainly no more than many other religions.
And science says (or refuses to say) anything whatsoever about Truth, instead concerning itself only with physical reality. In fact, in shameful cowardice, science doesn't even concern itself for the biggest question: how did this physical reality all come to be?
Because UNC-Truth cannot be known. there are always other possible explanations. The scientific method, as the Prof said, is the only method we have for weeding out falsehoods.
Again, may I introduce you to the Bible?
Again only if you can logically discount all those other religious texts.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinEach and every one of the cited viewpoints can be eliminated by virtue of logic and reason. Christianity is the only one which stands to any and all equally-applied disciplines of man.
[b]While not here endorsed, this stance is exactly the viewpoint I have put concerted effort toward exposing. There are many posters herein whose position on science demand science act as a religion: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
But we are discussing the Science Wars lectures, not what some posters here may happen to think. What people o ...[text shortened]... b]
Again only if you can logically discount all those other religious texts.
--- Penguin.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEach and every one of the cited viewpoints can be eliminated by virtue of logic and reason.
Each and every one of the cited viewpoints can be eliminated by virtue of logic and reason. Christianity is the only one which stands to any and all equally-applied disciplines of man.
Do you have intimate knowledge of all of those texts and all of their belief systems? I'd like you to pick one and eliminate it by logic and reason in a way that does not apply to Christianity.
Christianity is the only one which stands to any and all equally-applied disciplines of man.
What does this statement mean? I don't really understand what you are trying to say but I suspect that it is only true to people who already believe in Christianity.
--- Penguin
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHChristianity is the only one which stands to any and all equally-applied disciplines of man. (My italics added.)
Each and every one of the cited viewpoints can be eliminated by virtue of logic and reason. Christianity is the only one which stands to any and all equally-applied disciplines of man.
And Kashmiri Shaivism fails exactly where?
Originally posted by PenguinDo you have intimate knowledge of all of those texts and all of their belief systems?
Each and every one of the cited viewpoints can be eliminated by virtue of logic and reason.
Do you have intimate knowledge of all of those texts and all of their belief systems? I'd like you to pick one and eliminate it by logic and reason in a way that does not apply to Christianity.
Christianity is the only one which stands to any and all equa ...[text shortened]... t I suspect that it is only true to people who already believe in Christianity.
--- Penguin
Define intimate.
I'd like you to pick one and eliminate it by logic and reason in a way that does not apply to Christianity.
We can discuss any of them (such as v invites above), but I'm not certain what you mean "in a way that does not apply to Christainity."
What does this statement mean?
Staying within the realm of known things, only one belief system suffers no contradiction.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut that ends up being somewhat circular, does it not? You’re predefining the “right” metaphysical answer, and then asserting the “right” theology is the one that provides that answer, and it is “right” because it does so.
Separation of creator and creation, for one.
If your philosophy is dualist, then Kashmiri Shaivism fails. If your philosophy is non-dualist, it does not (on that account, anyway).
In order to establish your contention, you need to first establish that non-dualism is logically untenable.
Originally posted by Penguinan observation from me, the resident Luddite:
[b]Ok, so I have now finished listening to 'Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It', a lecture series presented by Steven L. Goldman. Its homepage is at [http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1235&pc=Science%20and%20Mathematics] You can download it for $35 (though I have heard rumours that it can be found on some strange system called BitCascade or some-such?...)
Whoaaaa! You mean it costs REAL MONEY to go check out these sites that posters so blithely direct me? I knew there was a reason why I never jumped on that bandwagon.