Science Wars

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Do you have intimate knowledge of all of those texts and all of their belief systems?
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 Christa ...[text shortened]...
Staying within the realm of known things, only one belief system suffers no contradiction.[/b]

Define intimate.

You're sounding a little like Bill Gates defending an anti-trust case. You claimed that all of the belief systems I mentioned can be disproved with logic and reason in ways that Christianity cannot. This implies that you have in-depth knowledge of all these belief systems. I'm just asking you to back up the claim.

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."

You said "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.". I'm asking you to do what you claim can be done: discredit one of the belief systems I listed above, using logic and reason, in a way that cannot be applied to Christianity.

Staying within the realm of known things, only one belief system suffers no contradiction.

There is no realm of known things, other than pure mathematics. The professor explained this several times. You cannot achieve UNC-Truth, only PCP-truth. And again, as the professor explained, the scientific method (of which there is only one) is the only one we have yet found that can hope to give us PCP-truth. The Christian religions suffer the same problems as all the other religions when it comes to providing us with any kind of truth.

You are failing to demonstrate any disagreement over what the scientific method is, just as you failed to demonstrate in the 'Religious Scientist' thread that Christianity is not, or that Naturalism is, a religion. As I recall, your response to my last criticisms in that thread was that you had no more arguments to offer.

--- Penguin.

The main reason I threw out Kashmiri Shaivism was because it is a fairly rich and interesting metaphysical system. As Freaky notes, however, it is as fully non-dualist as, say, Advaita Vedanta, Taoism or Buddhism—even though it uses “theistic” symbolism, and in fact, a “triune” one at that.

It is its non-dualism that Freaky first finds problematic (vis-à-vis the “separation of creator and created” of monotheism). If Freaky can show that non-dualism can be “eliminated by virtue of logic and reason”, he brings down all of the non-dualist philosophies and religions (and expressions within various religions, such as Hasidism/Kabbalah in Judaism) in one swell foop.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Observe, hypothesize, experiment. That's fairlyuniversal right?

you forgot one crusual point: Try the experiment again and again. so you are sure of your findings. Just an observation and my hypotheizies...🙂

Originally posted by Penguin
Define intimate.

You're sounding a little like Bill Gates defending an anti-trust case. You claimed that all of the belief systems I mentioned can be disproved with logic and reason in ways that Christianity cannot. This implies that you have in-depth knowledge of all these belief systems. I'm just asking you to back up the claim.

We can discuss ...[text shortened]... criticisms in that thread was that you had no more arguments to offer.

--- Penguin.

You're sounding a little like Bill Gates defending an anti-trust case.
Or--- worse--- the other Bill when defending the definition of 'is.' Nonetheless... I suppose we're stuck with my definiton of intimate. With respect to the world's religions, I loosely liken them to meat. While no one can honestly say they are intimately familiar with all categories (let alone all tastes) of meat, one can still declare a working knowledge of the same as juxtaposed with, say, vegetables.

Immediately the mind offers up eggplant or legumes as an objection to the analogy. Notable exceptions notwithstanding, the world's religions (as noted by v) fall relatively without effort into but a few categories.

My intimacy with the world's religions has been two-sided: informed from both those sympathetic to the particular viewpoint as well as those in opposition. Have I followed any of them? No. That is where my intimacy is bound.

You cannot achieve UNC-Truth, only PCP-truth.
And what category of truth does that dictum fall into, exactly?

And again, as the professor explained, the scientific method (of which there is only one)...
Not exactly. Or, better: exactly not. The lecture goes to great lengths to make the case that there exists no definite article before the term 'scientific method.'

... is the only one we have yet found that can hope to give us PCP-truth.
That, he did say. It is the first part of your summary which is at odds with the content of the lecture.

As I recall, your response to my last criticisms in that thread was that you had no more arguments to offer.
Well, none that I could think of which would offer any more light than was already supplied.

Originally posted by vistesd
The main reason I threw out Kashmiri Shaivism was because it is a fairly rich and interesting metaphysical system. As Freaky notes, however, it is as fully non-dualist as, say, Advaita Vedanta, Taoism or Buddhism—even though it uses “theistic” symbolism, and in fact, a “triune” one at that.

It is its non-dualism that Freaky first finds problematic (vis- ...[text shortened]... d expressions within various religions, such as Hasidism/Kabbalah in Judaism) in one swell foop.

That would be one powerful swoop. Perhaps a Nike?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That would be one powerful swoop. Perhaps a Nike?

You and I understand each other too well! (BTW, in the “I want to have a service” thread, I just gave you credit for giving me a valuable Zen whack on the head, oh, probably about a year back. You might recall it.)

On the one hand, I thought I’d simplify a bit, so we didn’t get into picking piecemeal at this and that religion/philosophy. On the other hand, I don’t think it can be done—which is why that is precisely the great impassive divide amongst the traditions, and you struck that nail right on the head.

We’re back to—

“You’re wrong.”

“You’re wrong, too.”

On the other hand, here is a koan:

Before any thinking at all, is there one or are there two?

Don’t theorize (or, as in our other thread, imagine): find, before thinking-mind. 🙂 Then theorize as you like (and we’ll still likely argue about it).

____________________________________

Note: Actually, it was a powerful “foop.” 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
You and I understand each other too well! (BTW, in the “I want to have a service” thread, I just gave you credit for giving me a valuable Zen whack on the head, oh, probably about a year back. You might recall it.)

On the one hand, I thought I’d simplify a bit, so we didn’t get into picking piecemeal at this and that religion/philosophy. On the other h ...[text shortened]... t it).

____________________________________

Note: Actually, it was a powerful “foop.” 🙂

Before any thinking at all, is there one or are there two?
That's putting it differently, and I appreciate the pause caused by the distinction. But I think it inevitably leads to the same idea as:

Can God create something He cannot pick up?

I've always either thought the answer was no, or the question non-sensical, thus unanswerable. Once I considered His creation of the inviolable volition of angels and man, I have since considered the answer to be 'yes.'

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Before any thinking at all, is there one or are there two?
That's putting it differently, and I appreciate the pause caused by the distinction. But I think it inevitably leads to the same idea as:

Can God create something He cannot pick up?

I've always either thought the answer was no, or the question non-sensical, thus unanswerable. ...[text shortened]... f the inviolable volition of angels and man, I have since considered the answer to be 'yes.'[/b]

No, not quite the same. The God-stone thing is intended to illustrate a logical dilemma (whether it has merit or not, I am not interested in here).

The koan has an answer, but it is not a thinking answer. The koan points beyond (or rather, before) thinking.

You are thinking: “I think...”; “I always thought...”; "I have since considered...".

And, although I keyed off from that, it is not about the dualism/non-dualism debate either. That is, it is not about thinking “one” or thinking “two”; asserting “one” or asserting “two”; making “one” or making “two”.

When you think, are you aware of your thinking, of how thoughts arise, are strung together, form thought-complexes, etc.? If you are, what is being aware? If not...?

A koan is just a koan. Don’t philosophize about it. Don’t spend your time thinking about heavy stones. Or counting numbers.

Also, you don’t need to give me an answer. It’s for you to find for yourself.

Before any thinking at all, is there one or are there two?

Don’t theorize (or, as in our other thread, imagine): find, before thinking-mind.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You're sounding a little like Bill Gates defending an anti-trust case.
Or--- worse--- the other Bill when defending the definition of 'is.' Nonetheless... I suppose we're stuck with my definiton of intimate. With respect to the world's religions, I loosely liken them to meat. While no one can honestly say they are intimately familiar with all ca none that I could think of which would offer any more light than was already supplied.[/b]

I suppose we're stuck with my definiton of intimate.

Well we have not actually heard your definition of 'intimate'. I have since rephrased my question to be a little clearer so we shouldn't need to argue about the definition of the word 'imtimate'.

And what category of truth does that dictum fall into, exactly?

Did you listen to the lectures? the Prof explained the difference between Universal, Necessary and Certain Truth; and Particular, Contingent and Probable truth.

The lecture goes to great lengths to make the case that there exists no definite article before the term 'scientific method.'

No he doesn't, he goes to great lengths to explain the debate over what the method tells us but after he has covered the 17th century he says no more about what the method is. This is because that debate was settled by then and no-one has suggested a viable alternative since then. If you know of a viable alternative, please describe it.

But the challenge still remains, You said that all religions other than Christianity can be logically refuted so please choose one and logically refute it in a way that cannot be applied to Christianity.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
I suppose we're stuck with my definiton of intimate.

Well we have not actually heard your definition of 'intimate'. I have since rephrased my question to be a little clearer so we shouldn't need to argue about the definition of the word 'imtimate'.

And what category of truth does that dictum fall into, exactly?

Did you listen to the lectu ...[text shortened]... and logically refute it in a way that cannot be applied to Christianity.

--- Penguin[/b]

No he doesn't, he goes to great lengths to explain the debate over what the method [b]tells us but after he has covered the 17th century he says no more about what the method is. This is because that debate was settled by then and no-one has suggested a viable alternative since then. If you know of a viable alternative, please describe it.[/b]
You may have hurried over the part wherein he (not at all deferring the professor as the final authority, but nonetheless) underscores the original problems with using the definite article before the phrase, which exists to this day. He goes to great lengths to establish that there is no one accepted scientific method.

In fact, his lecture is very much a confirmation of the age-old problem relative to perspective. While you are correct in emphasizing the professor's claim as to his choice for the preferred tool, your characterization of his description of the tool is incorrect.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No he doesn't, he goes to great lengths to explain the debate over what the method [b]tells us but after he has covered the 17th century he says no more about what the method is. This is because that debate was settled by then and no-one has suggested a viable alternative since then. If you know of a viable alternative, please d ice for the preferred tool, your characterization of his description of the tool is incorrect.[/b]

You may have hurried over the part wherein he (not at all deferring the professor as the final authority, but nonetheless) underscores the original problems with using the definite article before the phrase, which exists to this day. He goes to great lengths to establish that there is no one accepted scientific method.

I may have missed that bit. It's quite possible that I was listening with a prejudging ear that selectively filtered this out but if so it was unintentional. I was trying to listen specifically for this kind of thing. Can you recall roughly whereabouts in the lectures he says this? I'd like to try to find that bit.

By the way, I've lent my copy to a couple of other people and would like to pass on their thanks for bringing the lectures to our attention.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
You may have hurried over the part wherein he (not at all deferring the professor as the final authority, but nonetheless) underscores the original problems with using the definite article before the phrase, which exists to this day. He goes to great lengths to establish that there is no one accepted scientific method.

I may have missed that bit. It's ...[text shortened]... ould like to pass on their thanks for bringing the lectures to our attention.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Can you recall roughly whereabouts in the lectures he says this? I'd like to try to find that bit.
I'd have to check it out again to get the specific spot, but I recall it to be in Part 1, somewhere around lecture seven.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thanks for the recommendation.

I just finished a similar audio book--"The earth as center of the Universe", which references a book, The Deluge in Science & Legend. Have you heard of it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not so fast. Science does say it is right, in that it confers upon itself, as Penguin quoted the professor, as being the best method for comprehending reality.

Scientific models are always becoming more right, as more data comes in. We always say something along the lines of "the theory of xyz, as it stands at the moment predicts blah blah blah". We never say "this is an infallible judgement which will never be superseded". That's the property of you boys, I believe.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Can you recall roughly whereabouts in the lectures he says this? I'd like to try to find that bit.
I'd have to check it out again to get the specific spot, but I recall it to be in Part 1, somewhere around lecture seven.[/b]

Freaky was saying that the Professor said that there was and is significant dispute as to what the scientific method was, essentially that there are multiple conflicting methods.

Finally got around to looking for this.

I think you are referring to the first couple of minutes of lecture 2 where the prof says "...while it is commonly said that there is such a thing as 'The Scientific Method', by the end of this lecture and certainly by the end of the next one you will see that there really is not and never has been such a method as 'The Scientific Method': there is no one method that has been used by scientists in order to move from data to theories"

I don't think he really achieves this He covers a few methods put forward before the 18th century but offers none other than the accepted one (The Scientific Method) since then. In lecture 2, he talks about Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes two opposing ideas, both formulated in the 17th century.

Bacon: Collect data until all data is collected, find patterns, formulate hypotheses, test them through experimentation & refine them

Descartes: Ignore data & use logical thinking and deduction to formulate truths (universal, necessary and certain).

Bacon's method (as described by the Prof, I have not studied it beyond this) has the problem that you can never collect all the data, you have to stop collecting at some point and move on to the next stage. Therefore you can miss patterns or see patterns that are not relevant. It is also impossible to entirely remove the 4 'idols of the mind'. Descartes method is fine so long as we completely define the rules, i.e. maths, logic, chess etc, not for discovering or inventing models that explain experience.

Nobody uses Bacon's pure method. Neither do they use Descartes. These were early attempts at formulating a method that worked in an ideal world (where you could collect all the data and mechanically induce or logically deduce the true rules of nature. We are not in either of those ideal worlds.

Early in the third lecture (about 3 minutes in) the prof says "I hope it's becoming abundantly clear that when we talk about The Scientific Method we are speaking very loosely and in truth rather imprecisely because there are too many methods being used by the founders of modern science for use to identify a single method as The Scientific Method." He then describes two more methods through lectures 3 and 4...

His description of Galileo's method is pretty vague but it seems to be close to the modern understanding: look at some aspect of experience, draw up a theory to describe and model the experience, test the model & revise if the tests fail. Apparently he thought this could give UNC-Truth but as we know, you can't get that and can at best get PCP-truth.

Newton is covered in lecture 4. The Prof describes his method as deconstructing & reconstructing a phenomena: If you can do this and end up with the same thing then you have understood the phenomena. I personally don't think this holds. Newton may have done this with light but I'm not convinced that he deconstructed and reconstructed matter to formulate his theory of gravity. He also goes on about the assumptions that Newton made when formulating his theories and whether his theories explain or just describe natural phenomena. This is fair enough but does not describe a new method at all.

After Galileo and Newton, who pretty much used The Scientific Method as I have defined it, the Prof gives no further examples of scientific methods. So since roughly the start of the 18th century, 200 years ago, when the term Science replaced the term Natural Philosophy, there has only been one scientific method, overwhelmingly agreed upon by the scientific community, which is what I've said from the start. This is why if you Google for Scientific Method you will find page after page describing essentially the same process.

Freaky, you have still to provide evidence that there are multiple conflicting ‘scientific methods’ to justify your post in the ‘Religious Scientist’ thread. I don’t think you can do it through these lectures, interesting as they are.

--- Penguin.