A badly written introduction to the scientific method

[thetha]

Yes, of course science is very similar to a religion: like a religion, it is a complex of rituals and ethical commandments.

Similar but not the same. Don't all philosophies have ethical commandments?

There are moral anti-realists of all kinds in philosophy, so apparently not. I'm skeptical sometimes whether anyone is actually a moral anti-realist "in their head" though, rather than it just being some weird kind of pedantry.

[HoskhMatriarch]

The creation of a universe in a "finished" state would make the same predictions as the prevailing scientific theories.

In the same way Russel's Teapot could. And it would be just as useful.

But please, someone, anyone, tell me more about how claiming the universe was created in 6,000 years but takes the appearance of being billions of years old is in any way a satisfying answer and not just some cop-out?

Whether you want to interpret a suggested "trace" as evidence of a miracle, attribute it to some at the moment unknown natural phenomenon, or accept it as a brute, unexplainable fact is largely an "existential" question, so to speak.

wot?

(Or: you could claim that it's part of your idea of a "good person" that they should not believe in miracles.)

I don't tie in morality with whether you believe in a wrong idea or not, unless, of course, that idea leads to actions that are ultimately harmful.

(Has anyone also read this yet?: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... ome-areas/)

Yes, a teapot is obviously just as important as the creation of the universe. Like gods, people have believed in various teapots in orbit ever since the dawn of humanity, and also like gods, teapots have supernatural powers. A teapot is totally the same as major theological questions that intelligent people have considered since uralten times. People have even had visions of and purported encounters with teapots, and they meditate on teapots and have strange experiences regarding them.

Yes, I read that article. Obviously, the scientific worldview is supreme over all, and no knowledge can be obtained in any other way and be valid. Now, show me scientific evidence that you love your family, have good friends (if you're into that kind of thing), and that your favorite music and art is beautiful/awesome/whatever your aesthetic preference is. Actually, just measure love, friendship, and beauty for me to prove that they exist.

[Ahzoh]

Yes, a teapot is obviously just as important as the creation of the universe. Like gods, people have believed in various teapots in orbit ever since the dawn of humanity, and also like gods, teapots have supernatural powers. A teapot is totally the same as major theological questions that intelligent people have considered since uralten times. People have even had visions of and purported encounters with teapots, and they meditate on teapots and have strange experiences regarding them.

That analogy went right over your head. I don't think you understand my point.

Yes, I read that article. Obviously, the scientific worldview is supreme over all, and no knowledge can be obtained in any other way and be valid.

You constantly seem to misunderstand me and I'm beginning to think it's intentional.

I'm not arguing that "science is supreme over all" nor am I arguing that "no knowledge can be obtained in any other way and be valid". I am arguing, however, that it is better than any knowledge gained through theism (which one can argue doesn't really explain reality at all).

Now, show me scientific evidence that you love your family, have good friends (if you're into that kind of thing), and that your favorite music and art is beautiful/awesome/whatever your aesthetic preference is. Actually, just measure love, friendship, and beauty for me to prove that they exist.

These are stupid arguments to make and don't prove what ever point your trying to make.
You think that religion can explain why you love your family? Or why you can feel love or friendship or why you think art is aesthetically pleasing? Well, that's a false premise.

You can't prove--or even measure--feelings, but you can certainly explain them, through science.

[gestaltist]

Sal: thanks for the detailed explanation!

Ahzoh: I hope you hold your own religious views (by which I mean communism) to the same scrutiny as you do other religious views...

[HoskhMatriarch]

Yes, a teapot is obviously just as important as the creation of the universe. Like gods, people have believed in various teapots in orbit ever since the dawn of humanity, and also like gods, teapots have supernatural powers. A teapot is totally the same as major theological questions that intelligent people have considered since uralten times. People have even had visions of and purported encounters with teapots, and they meditate on teapots and have strange experiences regarding them.

That analogy went right over your head. I don't think you understand my point.

Yes, I read that article. Obviously, the scientific worldview is supreme over all, and no knowledge can be obtained in any other way and be valid.

You constantly seem to misunderstand me and I'm beginning to think it's intentional.

I'm not arguing that "science is supreme over all" nor am I arguing that "no knowledge can be obtained in any other way and be valid". I am arguing, however, that it is better than any knowledge gained through theism (which one can argue doesn't really explain reality at all).

Now, show me scientific evidence that you love your family, have good friends (if you're into that kind of thing), and that your favorite music and art is beautiful/awesome/whatever your aesthetic preference is. Actually, just measure love, friendship, and beauty for me to prove that they exist.

These are stupid arguments to make and don't prove what ever point your trying to make.
You think that religion can explain why you love your family? Or why you can feel love or friendship or why you think art is aesthetically pleasing? Well, that's a false premise.

You can't prove--or even measure--feelings, but you can certainly explain them, through science.

I've heard the teapot argument a billion times before. It's really not all that clever, although maybe it could seem that way if you haven't read a lot.

The article said that it's dangerous to let people think they can get knowledge through any means other than Science™. Did you read it, or are you actually saying you disagree with it? "These statements suggest that faith-based religions, or more broadly, non-empirically based worldviews [emphasis mine], might have domains of epistemic competence..." Clearly, non-empirical worldviews do have domains of epistemic competence sometimes. I don't need to do a bunch of rigorous experiments to prove to myself that I'd rather listen to German opera than Italian, for instance, I just need to have listened to both before and intuitively realized I had a preference. So, why can't intuitive knowledge be valid for anything else, including the most important questions of life? Or do I just need to go start listening to Monteverdi now and convert to atheism? (Also, I apologize to Monteverdi for being mentioned in the same sentence as converting to atheism.)

So science can explain things that, according to it, don't exist (since in science nothing exists if you can't prove it)? That seems internally incoherent.

[Ahzoh]

Sal: thanks for the detailed explanation!

Ahzoh: I hope you hold your own religious views (by which I mean communism) to the same scrutiny as you do other religious views...

I don't have any religious views... I'm an atheist...

I've heard the teapot argument a billion times before. It's really not all that clever, although maybe it could seem that way if you haven't read a lot.

I used the phrase to show that what Xing posited of a "completed universe" is to anyone truly looking for the nature of the universe (in this day and age) is just as much useful as positing that a teapot floats in space. I could have used the Flying Spaghetti Monster and still fit my point.

The article said that it's dangerous to let people think they can get knowledge through any means other than Science™. Did you read it, or are you actually saying you disagree with it? "These statements suggest that faith-based religions, or more broadly, non-empirically based worldviews [emphasis mine], might have domains of epistemic competence..."

Yes, well here is the full context:

These statements suggest that faith-based religions, or more broadly, non-empirically based worldviews, might have domains of epistemic competence, for instance in knowing about the supernatural, paranormal or astrological. This in turn suggests that there might be reliable and objective understandings of these domains, lending support to the idea they actually exist. [emphasis mine]

The concept of a supernatural aspect of reality intertwined with a natural aspect of reality (dualism) is meaningless to someone who holds a monistic worldview, like me.

I don't agree with the claim that science is the only way of obtaining knowledge being that there could be a newer more effective means of obtaining knowledge, but as far as now, science is the best method. There are other epistemological methods, and those are logic and math. Theology, I argue, does not truly explain reality.

As far as epistemology is concerned, intersubjective empiracism is the best method.

And yes, there are a lot of subjective things like feelings and thoughts and the meaning of life, that cannot be physically measured or proven, just like math and logic, but that does mean they can be explained by theology.

Subjectivity is all a part of our brain's interpretation of stimulus. Subjective things like feelings and purpose will always stay subjective and cannot be objectively defined. Science, logic, and math can't tell you what the meaning of life or why we exist and neither can religion! The latter is just assumptions without any substance.

So science can explain things that, according to it, don't exist (since in science nothing exists if you can't prove it)? That seems internally incoherent.

Who said according to science that feelings aren't real? Feelings are clearly demonstrable. Also, the concept of proof by inference exists.

[gestaltist]

Sal: thanks for the detailed explanation!

Ahzoh: I hope you hold your own religious views (by which I mean communism) to the same scrutiny as you do other religious views...

I don't have any religious views... I'm an atheist...

I'm confused. Is this evasion or do you honestly miss my point?

[Ahzoh]

Sal: thanks for the detailed explanation!

Ahzoh: I hope you hold your own religious views (by which I mean communism) to the same scrutiny as you do other religious views...

I don't have any religious views... I'm an atheist...

I'm confused. Is this evasion or do you honestly miss my point?

I did not read the communism part. Anyways...

Communism is not a religion, it's a political philosophy.
Are you telling me you can't distinguish the two?
On the other hand, some people essentially worship money and hoard it. So maybe Capitalism is a religion too.

Oh yes, I no longer hold a Leninist viewpoint, but rather I'm a council communist/libertarian communist. Mostly, I'm just anti-capitalist.

[HoskhMatriarch]

The concept of a supernatural aspect of reality intertwined with a natural aspect of reality (dualism) is meaningless to someone who holds a monistic worldview, like me.

Materialism isn't the only kind of monism. There's idealism, animism, neutral monism, and even pantheistic monism that features in various religions, famously Hinduism, and many of these kinds of monism obviously include supernatural elements. Please don't be ignorant and throw everyone in the camps "materialist monist" or "stupid dualist", unless of course your actual opinion is "I'm right and everyone else is a dolt so it doesn't matter what kind of dolt they are". Assuming everyone else is stupid is a great thing to do if your goal is to not learn anything ever.

[Ahzoh]

The concept of a supernatural aspect of reality intertwined with a natural aspect of reality (dualism) is meaningless to someone who holds a monistic worldview, like me.

Materialism isn't the only kind of monism. There's idealism, animism, neutral monism, and even pantheistic monism that features in various religions, famously Hinduism, and many of these kinds of monism obviously include supernatural elements. Please don't be ignorant and throw everyone in the camps "materialist monist" or "stupid dualist", unless of course your actual opinion is "I'm right and everyone else is a dolt so it doesn't matter what kind of dolt they are". Assuming everyone else is stupid is a great thing to do if your goal is to not learn anything ever.

Assume makes an ass out of you and me. Mostly it's you.
I suppose there are other kinds of monism, but I only heard people who consider themselves "monist" refer to materialist views. And that is the one I refer to.

All I have learned in life have lead me to believe that materialism is the most logical and correct view, especially when other people's claims of "supernatural events" end up being shown to be natural phenomenon or due to tricks of the mind. I and many people around the world have realized that religion can't adequately explain and predict reality.

[HoskhMatriarch]

The concept of a supernatural aspect of reality intertwined with a natural aspect of reality (dualism) is meaningless to someone who holds a monistic worldview, like me.

Materialism isn't the only kind of monism. There's idealism, animism, neutral monism, and even pantheistic monism that features in various religions, famously Hinduism, and many of these kinds of monism obviously include supernatural elements. Please don't be ignorant and throw everyone in the camps "materialist monist" or "stupid dualist", unless of course your actual opinion is "I'm right and everyone else is a dolt so it doesn't matter what kind of dolt they are". Assuming everyone else is stupid is a great thing to do if your goal is to not learn anything ever.

Assume makes an ass out of you and me. Mostly it's you.

I only heard people who consider themselves "monist" refer to materialist views. And that is the one I refer to.

You just stated that you thought the only two points of view were materialism and dualism (I'm hoping not Cartesian dualism at that, but that seems likely), so I fail to see how my (correctly) thinking that that's what you thought makes me an ass. I don't think all the Hindus and other millions of people in the other groups would really appreciate being called materialists due to their being monists.

[Ahzoh]

The concept of a supernatural aspect of reality intertwined with a natural aspect of reality (dualism) is meaningless to someone who holds a monistic worldview, like me.

Materialism isn't the only kind of monism. There's idealism, animism, neutral monism, and even pantheistic monism that features in various religions, famously Hinduism, and many of these kinds of monism obviously include supernatural elements. Please don't be ignorant and throw everyone in the camps "materialist monist" or "stupid dualist", unless of course your actual opinion is "I'm right and everyone else is a dolt so it doesn't matter what kind of dolt they are". Assuming everyone else is stupid is a great thing to do if your goal is to not learn anything ever.

Assume makes an ass out of you and me. Mostly it's you.

I only heard people who consider themselves "monist" refer to materialist views. And that is the one I refer to.

You just stated that you thought the only two points of view were materialism and dualism, so I fail to see how my (correctly) thinking that that's what you thought makes me an ass. I don't think all the Hindus and other millions of people in the other groups would really appreciate being called materialists due to their being monists.

It makes you an ass to assume that my position was "assuming everyone else is stupid" or that I think dualists are necessarily stupid.

[HoskhMatriarch]

The concept of a supernatural aspect of reality intertwined with a natural aspect of reality (dualism) is meaningless to someone who holds a monistic worldview, like me.

Materialism isn't the only kind of monism. There's idealism, animism, neutral monism, and even pantheistic monism that features in various religions, famously Hinduism, and many of these kinds of monism obviously include supernatural elements. Please don't be ignorant and throw everyone in the camps "materialist monist" or "stupid dualist", unless of course your actual opinion is "I'm right and everyone else is a dolt so it doesn't matter what kind of dolt they are". Assuming everyone else is stupid is a great thing to do if your goal is to not learn anything ever.

Assume makes an ass out of you and me. Mostly it's you.

I only heard people who consider themselves "monist" refer to materialist views. And that is the one I refer to.

You just stated that you thought the only two points of view were materialism and dualism, so I fail to see how my (correctly) thinking that that's what you thought makes me an ass. I don't think all the Hindus and other millions of people in the other groups would really appreciate being called materialists due to their being monists.

It makes you an ass to assume that my position was "assuming everyone else is stupid" or that I think dualists are necessarily stupid.

I'm sorry for having thought you think everyone else is stupid, but if you don't think everyone else is stupid, why haven't you learned more about other perspectives besides your own? Do you have too busy of a job to research different worldviews? I could see that.

[Ahzoh]

I'm sorry for having thought you think everyone else is stupid, but if you don't think everyone else is stupid, why haven't you learned more about other perspectives besides your own? Do you have too busy of a job to research different worldviews? I could see that.

Another assumption and a wrong one. I know lots of perspectives and worldviews other than my own.

I find this to be a diversion from what I originally came here to post.

[Xing]

The creation of a universe in a "finished" state would make the same predictions as the prevailing scientific theories.

In the same way Russel's Teapot could. And it would be just as useful.

If there was a teapot that systematically eschewed attempts by science to discover it, then science would of course be 100& useless in discovering it, or tell us about its existence or non-existence. (But I don't think such a teapot exists, and I don't know of any worldview that does.)

But please, someone, anyone, tell me more about how claiming the universe was created in 6,000 years but takes the appearance of being billions of years old is in any way a satisfying answer and not just some cop-out?

No one in this thread has demanded that you believe in such a theory. In if it be true, there need not be any publicly demonstrable argument that could convince you about its truth.

wot?

Basically, reality does not jump into your brain and presents itself as it is. There is always an element of interpretation involved.

I don't tie in morality with whether you believe in a wrong idea or not, unless, of course, that idea leads to actions that are ultimately harmful.

But epistemology is, if not a moral, so at least a normative enterprise. It's part of your view about which people should belief. When you say that it "irrational" to believe in, God, or Russells teapot, or the Great Pumpkin, you are saying that "good people don't believe in such things". Just like you might say that "good people don't pick there noses in public", or "good people don't steal candy from children". Whether you want epistemology to be a normative enterprise or not, is irrelevant.

(Has anyone also read this yet?: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... ome-areas/)

Yes I have. But I don't see the point of arguing by linking to blogs or other sources that agrees with your own views. Anyone could do that. (And if arguing would be a matter of listing how much philosophy we have read, I suspect I would easily win over you anyway...)

Now I suggest that you reformulate the point of the blogpost in your own words. This would ensure that you have properly understood the argument in the blog, and that you're not just throwing words around.

[Shemtov]

Badly written or not, this would be useful to explain to creationists and other scientifically illiterate people.

You do releize that "Creationism" is a broad label which includes people who accept the science, such as some Gap Creationists and progressive creationists? It is far more then Young Earthers.

[Salmoneus]

I don't understand where this argument has come from.

Ahzoh says he's only denying that theistic belief systems are a good ground for knowledge about the material universe.

Well obviously, everybody agrees with that (including proponants of theistic belief systems).

Moving on?

[You may as well have an argument about whether pumpkins are a good alternative to rocket fuel]

[Ahzoh]

Badly written or not, this would be useful to explain to creationists and other scientifically illiterate people.

You do releize that "Creationism" is a broad label which includes people who accept the science, such as some Gap Creationists and progressive creationists? It is far more then Young Earthers.

Well I obviously knew that and I didn't refer to YECs only, but it doesn't matter because it's all pseudoscience.
There is the unfalsifiable claim that a deity might have created life on this planet and kick-started evolution, but the concept of abiogenesis seems more plausible.

Ahzoh says he's only denying that theistic belief systems are a good ground for knowledge about the material universe.

But I also deny that the supernatural exist and have any influence on reality and thus deny that theistic believe systems can provide any knowledge of reality at all.

[gestaltist]

Communism is not a religion, it's a political philosophy.
Are you telling me you can't distinguish the two?

It’s quite obvious that I am too dumb and limited to distinguish the two. After all, I know absolutely nothing about philosophy or religion. Would you be so kind and enlighten me?

Some philosophical views include just as much mumbo-jumbo as some religions. And some people are as fanatical about their philosophical views as some religious people about their religious views.

[Thrice Xandvii]

It seems to me this discussion would be greatly improved if the sarcastic, mean-spirited jibes were cut from it...