Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2017 11:35 AM
133 online now:
CosmicChimp, Coyote, Diomedes, New Cat's Eye, NoNukes, PaulK, vimesey (7 members, 126 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,747 Year: 13,353/21,208 Month: 2,835/3,605 Week: 177/933 Day: 73/104 Hour: 2/18

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The implications of Evolution
Posts: 18448
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9

Message 91 of 92 (796623)
01-01-2017 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by AndrewPD
01-01-2017 12:43 PM

On the topic of nuclear weapons. I don't see how a non scientist could create a nuclear weapon. ...

Really? Once you have the "how it works" information, it is just a matter of building the proper containment and ignition system. A competent mechanical engineer has the knowledge to do that.

... I think it is possible to have ethical problems with scientific research. ...

There are ethical problems with virtually every human endeavor that benefits some people more than others.

... For instance, research into race differences and sex differences and sexuality differences can be harmful/pernicious.

Again, it is not the knowledge itself, but the manner in which it is used.

Or ignored -- the "pray the gay away" people ignore the knowledge we have regarding the reality of homosexuality and try to force it into their delusional reality. Doesn't work. And a lot of people are harmed in the process.

The idea that scientists should be allowed to do what they please because science is neutral holds no water with me.

What knowledge should be taboo then?

A scientist can ask all manner of questions like "how long will it take for a bear to drown in a vat of oil". There can be factual answers to all manner of macabre questions. ...

And to stupid and silly questions, but I don't see how drowning a bear in oil advances the knowledge base. Usually science builds onto the knowledge we have, pursuing answers that have not yet been found.

... There is a process by which "appropriate" questions are selected. This is influenced by biases, ideologies and historical eras etc.

What is it? Who gets to decide?

One problem is whether the scientific paradigm has access to all facts or areas of enquiry ...

... that is available. Indeed, and that is why scientists do background research to get as much pertinent information they can get.

... And so when you get an area like mind which is only available to one person (the subject) science can just dismiss first person evidence or try and down play it's relevance. ...

If it can't be measured it cannot be tested, and that is the foundation of science. All you can do is try to find ways to measure it and quantify it.

... So this at its extreme has led to theorists like Dennet and The Churchland's denying mental states (Eliminative materialism) that we know immediately from direct experience exist.

But how do we compare those direct experiences? How do you measure them, quantify them, test them?

This privacy of mental states leads to a lot of problems including diagnosing mental illness. (I have personal experience here) And people have made allegations of historic child abuse that they can't prove because the main remaining evidence is in their private memories. I personally would love to have CCTV footage of my childhood to show people and to clarify to myself what actually happened. Thankfully I can prove somethings happened to me through collaborative witnesses.

All anecdotal evidence has the same problems.

Cognitive scientists have cast doubt on the validity of memories which is damaging. I know which schools I went to and where I lived as a child and I can prove it by documentary evidence. We have a lot of reliable memories for instance we know the meaning of thousands of words we learnt decades ago and we remember how to get around town and that 2+2=4. ...

Yes you have objective empirical evidence to validate your personal experience.

... Yet cognitive scientist are trying to under mine the reliability of our cognitive states in an attempt (I think) to try and create a false objectivity about mind.

Are they? or are they simply trying to find some means to measure, quantify and test? In order to have a basis to build on for finding out more about how our minds work.

So I agree with Thomas Nagel when he said "Objectivity is a view from nowhere" We are embedded in our minds.

And yet you say "I know which schools I went to and where I lived as a child and I can prove it by documentary evidence" showing that you know there is objective evidence available and that it is not only what is embedded in your mind.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by AndrewPD, posted 01-01-2017 12:43 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

Posts: 487
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 92 of 92 (796659)
01-02-2017 4:24 PM

not even wrong…
Those responding to the OP in this thread might benefit from perusing this brief rationalwiki article before wasting any more time on this nonsense.
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017