Atheism and religious hate

[Grimlundt]

So ...
you want to dodge the bullet by nit-picking?
Good for you

The point was made -- not by me -- and it is a good point, that scientific methods are themselves subject to scientific rigour.
In short, an experiment can be falsified -- which is to say, shown to be "unscientific"
LOL!
Do you understand now?

[Soviet Russia Republic]

The ridicule of people for espousing unfounded beliefs is a good thing.
Your religion is not a holy cow. If you proclaimed elvis was still alive, I would ridicule you. If there were campaigns to put "Elvis is alive" on billboards, I would support "No he isn't" bus posters.
I welcome the new wave of anti theism.
Opposing any and all state funding or support of unfounded beliefs is a good thing.
I likewise will lose respect for someone significantly if I find them to be religious, but don't expect others to follow my example. (The fact they do is beyond my control. My town is very atheist.)
If someone is a member of a LARGE organization (I.E, the catholic church.) I may well outright refuse to associate with them socially because of the implications of where their power/support is going. This is a personal choice.

Gee, if only the rest of humanity were more like you, the world would be a much better place.

[Seperates]

*sigh* I posted a big long post and my internet glitched and I lost it but didnt realize it... but it doesnt really matter. I made that point about the difference as a side not... the main point was what most of you appear to assume is the sidenote... asking why there was no "Im a theist and I welcome the tide" option... Im not here to debate, itsays in the bible that it is a sin to try and convert people who dont want it... plus if I were gonna debate, I wouldnt do it online because it rarely if ever does anything.

Perhaps you should just use it to organize and bounce your thoughts around.

[Grimlundt]

listen ... I KNOW it is hard
But you need to try and imagine a different world view ... not the scientific world view you actually have.
Only then will you come to understand how science is part of our present "scientific" world-view or *epsiteme*
It takes a lot of imagination
as Einstein remarked, words to the effect: most people cannot even formulate an opinion apart from the ones in which they have been culturally interpellated [sic]

[CVT Temp]

Furthermore, you are familiar with goidel's theoem?
no holistic system (e.g. of knowledge) -- or *episteme* -- can be justified from outside it's own system?

That's not what the Goedel incompleteness theorems say at all, and I wish philosophers would stop misapplying them.

All they say is that any logical system described by a fixed set of axioms which is able to contain the natural number system has propositions about it which are true but cannot be proven true within the confines of the fixed axiom set. Plenty of logical systems lack this particular problem, like Euclidean geometry, for example. And really, even for those systems that do have this issue, it's not really a big deal. Just don't insist on sticking to a single fixed set of axioms and you'll never encounter this problem.

[CVT Temp]

I am suggesting that our "scientific" world veiw or "episteme" assumes certain "epistemic impossibilities" beyond logical impossibilities. these impossibilities are things, like, well ... you KNOW that I do not have psychic powers ....

Furthermore, you are familiar with goidel's theoem?
no holistic system (e.g. of knowledge) -- or *episteme* -- can be justified from outside it's own system?
Thus science justifies itself, by means of an epistemic circularity?
The scientific method is falsifiable?
This is to say that the method is part of a world view?

Now I have no problem with science on that regard.
But we ought to be aware of how science function to create epistemic impossibilities?


p.s. religions are also prone to this circularity of justification -- even more so, generally

I don't have time to address problems with the rest of your post. Needless to say, I would solve all these problems by rejecting any and all fundamental ontology.

[Grimlundt]

Furthermore, you are familiar with goidel's theoem?
no holistic system (e.g. of knowledge) -- or *episteme* -- can be justified from outside it's own system?

That's not what the Goedel incompleteness theorems say at all, and I wish philosophers would stop misapplying them.

All they say is that any logical system described by a fixed set of axioms which is able to contain the natural number system has propositions about it which are true but cannot be proven true within the confines of the fixed axiom set. Plenty of logical systems lack this particular problem, like Euclidean geometry, for example. And really, even for those systems that do have this issue, it's not really a big deal. Just don't insist on sticking to a single fixed set of axioms and you'll never encounter this problem.

LOL
You just rephrased my version , dolt.
A system of axioms -- if it claims to holistic knowledge -- to have no outside -- cannot be justified from outside?

[Grimlundt]

To put it another way, you dismissive closed-minded dolt,

YOU think science can be proven by other other means than science.
IDIOT

I am suggesting that our "scientific" world veiw or "episteme" assumes certain "epistemic impossibilities" beyond logical impossibilities. these impossibilities are things, like, well ... you KNOW that I do not have psychic powers ....

Furthermore, you are familiar with goidel's theoem?
no holistic system (e.g. of knowledge) -- or *episteme* -- can be justified from outside it's own system?
Thus science justifies itself, by means of an epistemic circularity?
The scientific method is falsifiable?
This is to say that the method is part of a world view?

Now I have no problem with science on that regard.
But we ought to be aware of how science function to create epistemic impossibilities?


p.s. religions are also prone to this circularity of justification -- even more so, generally

I don't have time to address problems with the rest of your post. Needless to say, I would solve all these problems by rejecting any and all fundamental ontology.

[Grimlundt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
GEB contains many instances of recursion and self-reference, where objects and ideas speak about or refer back to themselves. For instance, there is a phonograph that destroys itself by playing a record titled "I Cannot Be Played on Record Player X" (an analogy to Gödel's incompleteness theorems), an examination of canon form in music, and a discussion of Escher's lithograph of two hands drawing each other. To describe such self-referencing objects, Hofstadter coins the term "strange loop", a concept he examines in more depth in his follow-up book I Am a Strange Loop. To escape many of the logical contradictions brought about by these self-referencing objects, Hofstadter discusses Zen koans. He attempts to show readers how to perceive reality outside their own experience and embrace such paradoxical questions by rejecting the premise — a strategy also called "unasking".

Yes. What I am asking YOU to try.
Just imagine, fort a second, that there might be something beyond science?
Art or morality for starters, maybe?

I am suggesting that our "scientific" world veiw or "episteme" assumes certain "epistemic impossibilities" beyond logical impossibilities. these impossibilities are things, like, well ... you KNOW that I do not have psychic powers ....

Furthermore, you are familiar with goidel's theoem?
no holistic system (e.g. of knowledge) -- or *episteme* -- can be justified from outside it's own system?
Thus science justifies itself, by means of an epistemic circularity?
The scientific method is falsifiable?
This is to say that the method is part of a world view?

Now I have no problem with science on that regard.
But we ought to be aware of how science function to create epistemic impossibilities?


p.s. religions are also prone to this circularity of justification -- even more so, generally

I don't have time to address problems with the rest of your post. Needless to say, I would solve all these problems by rejecting any and all fundamental ontology.

[CVT Temp]

You just rephrased my version , dolt.

No, I didn't. You clearly didn't read what I wrote. The Goedel incompleteness theorems are very specific, technical propositions that cannot be reduced to philosophical slogans.

A system of axioms -- if it claims to holistic knowledge -- to have no outside -- cannot be justified from outside?

What does this even mean? What's "axiomatic" and what's derived from axioms depends greatly on the context of discussion. Only overly zealous mathematicians and philosophers really wished to have full epistemic closure w.r.t. some grand set of ultimate axioms.

The reality is that what's real aren't "axioms," they are just arbitrary linguistic and/or procedural starting points of convenience. What's real is actual structures, and from the standpoint of structures, it really doesn't matter which set of axioms you choose to describe them as long as the descriptions match the actual structure.

[Seperates]

So ...
you want to dodge the bullet by nit-picking?
Good for you

The point was made -- not by me -- and it is a good point, that scientific methods are themselves subject to scientific rigour.
In short, an experiment can be falsified -- which is to say, shown to be "unscientific"
LOL!
Do you understand now?

Actually, the thought process is really rather simple.

Does it work? No? Try something else. Does that work? Yes? Ok, try it again. Does it still work? No? Ok, then try something inbetween. Does it work? Yes? Ok, try it again. Does it work? Yes? Ok, try it again. Does it work? Yes? etc. etc.

This is also called brute force "trial and error".

[Grimlundt]

Good objections.
Regardless, you dodged my question?
Can science be proven by means other than scientific means?

You just rephrased my version , dolt.

No, I didn't. You clearly didn't read what I wrote. The Goedel incompleteness theorems are very specific, technical propositions that cannot be reduced to philosophical slogans.

A system of axioms -- if it claims to holistic knowledge -- to have no outside -- cannot be justified from outside?

What does this even mean? What's "axiomatic" and what's derived from axioms depends greatly on the context of discussion. Only overly zealous mathematicians and philosophers really wished to have full epistemic closure w.r.t. some grand set of ultimate axioms.

The reality is that what's real aren't "axioms," they are just arbitrary linguistic and/or procedural starting points of convenience. What's real is actual structures, and from the standpoint of structures, it really doesn't matter which set of axioms you choose to describe them as long as the descriptions match the actual structure.

[Seperates]

Good objections.
Regardless, you dodged my question?
Can science be proven by means other than scientific means?

No, I didn't. You clearly didn't read what I wrote. The Goedel incompleteness theorems are very specific, technical propositions that cannot be reduced to philosophical slogans.



What does this even mean? What's "axiomatic" and what's derived from axioms depends greatly on the context of discussion. Only overly zealous mathematicians and philosophers really wished to have full epistemic closure w.r.t. some grand set of ultimate axioms.

The reality is that what's real aren't "axioms," they are just arbitrary linguistic and/or procedural starting points of convenience. What's real is actual structures, and from the standpoint of structures, it really doesn't matter which set of axioms you choose to describe them as long as the descriptions match the actual structure.

Does it have to be?

[CVT Temp]

To put it another way, you dismissive closed-minded dolt,

YOU think science can be proven by other other means than science.
IDIOT

I like the fact that you can't respond without insults. Very mature.

Again, your whole notion of "proving science" is a category error. Science isn't a set of claims about the world. It's a set of procedures that have been developed over time that tend to reduce systematic biases and produce as close to objective results as we've been able to obtain thus far. There is no fixed scientific ideology. Even the methods and techniques evolve over time as we become more aware of other kinds of bias and error that we didn't properly take account of before.

This is not just a nit-pick. It's a very serious problem with your claim.

[Grimlundt]

That's why the Azande only trusted the Chicken Oracle.
Religion was -- in part -- the science we had before religion.
Fraser convincingly argues that priestly begging for gods to have mercy replaces magic because the magician fails to deliver the rain. The priest promises nothing ... he can always say, the gods are still pissed off, or testing us ... yada yada
A magician on the other hand will tarred and feathered if his promises do not come true?

The point was made -- not by me -- and it is a good point, that scientific methods are themselves subject to scientific rigour.
In short, an experiment can be falsified -- which is to say, shown to be "unscientific"
LOL!
Do you understand now?

Actually, the thought process is really rather simple.

Does it work? No? Try something else. Does that work? Yes? Ok, try it again. Does it still work? No? Ok, then try something inbetween. Does it work? Yes? Ok, try it again. Does it work? Yes? Ok, try it again. Does it work? Yes? etc. etc.

This is also called brute force "trial and error".

[CVT Temp]

Good objections.
Regardless, you dodged my question?
Can science be proven by means other than scientific means?

Again, I'm not sure the question makes sense. What would it mean to "prove science"? You can certainly prove specific claims within the purview of scientific exploration, but then you're not proving science itself, but rather the claims, and those claims can be proven scientifically.

As for "proving science," you can certainly discuss various techniques and the like, showing that some work and others do not. The problem you're running into is that you seem to think that science is some fixed thing. It isn't. As I said before, even the methodologies evolve over time and get better, and yes, they evolve from internal self-critique of some methods by other methods. It's capable of evolving and changing from within because it's not a fixed set of principles.

[Grimlundt]

My point is that science cannot be proven except by science. in short, it's a holistic, self-reinforcing system of knowledge (the technical tyerm is "episteme")

Now I have NO PROBLEM with science
Just the arrogance of some atheists who see themselves as "scientists"

I myself do not believe in the gods
But I do not attack religious/cultural beliefs for no reason
and then strut about and say I have all the answers

Good objections.
Regardless, you dodged my question?
Can science be proven by means other than scientific means?

Does it have to be?

[Grimlundt]

Choose your truth conditions.
let's be Popperian?

I grant you that science is less systematic than they teach at school (Feyerabend's point?)

But is that really your defense against my characterization of our present episteme?

Please try and come to terms with my case, instead of going into semantics

Good objections.
Regardless, you dodged my question?
Can science be proven by means other than scientific means?

Again, I'm not sure the question makes sense. What would it mean to "prove science"? You can certainly prove specific claims within the purview of scientific exploration, but then you're not proving science itself, but rather the claims, and those claims can be proven scientifically.

As for "proving science," you can certainly discuss various techniques and the like, showing that some work and others do not. The problem you're running into is that you seem to think that science is some fixed thing. It isn't. As I said before, even the methodologies evolve over time and get better, and yes, they evolve from internal self-critique of some methods by other methods. It's capable of evolving and changing from within because it's not a fixed set of principles.

[Tlaceceyaya]

My point is that science cannot be proven except by science. in short, it's a holistic, self-reinforcing system of knowledge (the technical tyerm is "episteme")

Now I have NO PROBLEM with science
Just the arrogance of some atheists who see themselves as "scientists"

I myself do not believe in the gods
But I do not attack religious/cultural beliefs for no reason
and then strut about and say I have all the answers

Does it have to be?

1: Why do you type above the quote? It makes it more difficult to figure out what you're talking about, because in english you don't read from the bottom up. you read from the top down.

2: How, exactly, do you 'prove' science?

[CVT Temp]

Oh, and it can also change from external influences as well. Really, all the so-called philosophical problems that arise only ever show up because philosophers insist on fixed, absolute standards, axioms, and methods, none of which are necessary or even helpful.

[Seperates]

That's why the Azande only trusted the Chicken Oracle.
Religion was -- in part -- the science we had before religion.
Fraser convincingly argues that priestly begging for gods to have mercy replaces magic because the magician fails to deliver the rain. The priest promises nothing ... he can always say, the gods are still pissed off, or testing us ... yada yada
A magician on the other hand will tarred and feathered if his promises do not come true?

Kinda. But non-applied science doesn't promise anything either. That is more of an aspect of engineering, a.k.a. applied science.
The practice of medicine, with or without religious overtures, is more closly related to science than religion.

However, science does something that religion doesn't ever really do. It restricts it's claims to things we can observe, and is ok with admitting that it was wrong about the causality of some event, but it is closer to figuring it out. Science is the search for knowledge. Religion is generally the assertion of it.

[Demphor]

Agree to disagree and respect and accept people for believing in what ever the fuck they want to.

*end of thread*

[Mavorpen]

My point is that science cannot be proven except by science. in short, it's a holistic, self-reinforcing system of knowledge (the technical tyerm is "episteme")

You're using a computer... while saying science cannot be proven. Riiiight.

I myself do not believe in the gods
But I do not attack religious/cultural beliefs for no reason
and then strut about and say I have all the answers

No atheist claims to have all the answers. Whining over nothing.

[Grimlundt]

Well ... I do not insist on fixed axioms -- except where necessary ... such as Euclidean geometry.
In sociology. LOL. No way!

Well
An experiment must be able to be duplicated to be called good science?
Is this a fixed axiom?

Oh, and it can also change from external influences as well. Really, all the so-called philosophical problems that arise only ever show up because philosophers insist on fixed, absolute standards, axioms, and methods, none of which are necessary or even helpful.

[Kholdlands]

Agree to disagree and respect and accept people for believing in what ever the fuck they want to.

*end of thread*

yeah good luck with that NS has always done this and will continue to function in this manner. Check past threads, there are many of them like this one, new ones appear every couple of days.