|
Author
|
Topic: the rules in science
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
Message 4 of 123 (484947)
10-03-2008 2:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
09-29-2008 12:52 PM
|
|
Conversely...
You can't talk about what ought and ought not as science, and that means that within science ought and ought not are not material, but spiritual. Does that mean those with strictly a spiritual approach will stop interfering with science?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 09-29-2008 12:52 PM | | Syamsu has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 9 of 123 (485067)
10-04-2008 7:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Syamsu
10-04-2008 7:37 PM
|
|
Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
So I think we all need to confront these evolutionist posters more;
- when they demand objective evidence for the spiritual (God), which is basically equal to demanding objective evidence of goodness or badness
- when they make a mess of subjectivity and objectivity in talking about people, brains, freedom, morality, evolution of morality, the underlying motivations in universal processes or lack thereof etc. And we should confront those spiritualists when they stick their noses into science, where clearly they don't belong, eh?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 10-04-2008 7:37 PM | | Syamsu has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 27 of 123 (485152)
10-05-2008 6:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by Syamsu
10-05-2008 3:11 PM
|
|
Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
As before, what is out of bounds for science is the why, for when there is a decision. Because the information simply does not exist, and the why information we make up, can be changed without it being any more or less accurate. One day we can say the reason why is X, the other day we can say it's Y, and neither would be more or less accurate as far as science can tell. I asked you before, but you didn't answer: If you are saying that science has to stay out of the "why" end of things, does that mean that "spiritualists" will quit interfering with science? Seems only fair.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 3:11 PM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 7:07 AM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 30 of 123 (485201)
10-06-2008 10:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by Syamsu
10-06-2008 7:07 AM
|
|
Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Definitely when scientists don't enter into questions about what should, that's going to help science getting less interference from spiritualists. You're missing the point entirely. I am referring to things like the theory of evolution. You say that science should stay out of the "why" questions. I would like to know if you would also advocate that "spiritualists" keep their noses out of things like the theory of evolution in return. That is a "what, when, where, and how" question. Clearly, from your viewpoint, "spiritualists" shouldn't be intruding into such fields. Wouldn't you agree?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 7:07 AM | | Syamsu has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 38 of 123 (485282)
10-06-2008 6:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by Syamsu
10-06-2008 6:37 PM
|
|
Re: No Point
But as before, this is all besides the point. I know you are a liable to pseudoscience because you don't believe in the spiritual realm at all, so therefore you can't distinghuish is from ought easily. It must mean that your ought and ought nots are somehow objectified. And there you go completely predictably accepting talk of blind, pitiless indifference as science, rather then protesting it. There is no evidence for "the spiritual realm" at all. Why should science take that lack of evidence into account in its operations?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 6:37 PM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by Syamsu, posted 10-07-2008 11:00 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 50 of 123 (485424)
10-08-2008 11:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 3:59 AM
|
|
Spiritual realm?
I suggest for you all to acknowledge the spiritual realm... Why should we? There is no scientific evidence for it at all. Heinlein sums this up quite well: The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 3:59 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 12:16 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 53 of 123 (485429)
10-08-2008 12:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 12:16 PM
|
|
Re: Spiritual realm?
You already asked that question, and the answer was, we should acknowledge the spiritual realm, so we can apply the ought and ought nots to the spiritual, and leave science free to cover the material. As before, that there is no evidence for the spiritual realm is consistent with that in science there can be no evidence for ought and ought not. Your protest against acknowleding the spiritual realm, implies that you protest against accepting ought and ought not's without evidence as well. (Emphasis added) Your whole argument relies on showing that your concept of "ought and ought not's," for which there is no evidence whatsoever, belong to the spiritual realm, for which there is also no evidence whatsoever. You shoot yourself in the foot with this line of reasoning. Occam's razor cuts both ways.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 12:16 PM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 2:06 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 58 of 123 (485444)
10-08-2008 3:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 2:13 PM
|
|
Re: All judgement... etc. etc. etc.
You aren't making a very clear categorical distinction when you don't acknowledge the spiritual. Then you have the material and.. some vague unnamed category besides. Have you considered discussing this with Brenda Tucker? She has a thread a ways down, and I think the two of you have a lot in common.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 2:13 PM | | Syamsu has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 62 of 123 (485474)
10-08-2008 5:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 5:07 PM
|
|
Re: Clear distinctions
Fun is a thing in the spiritual domain. That's how I use the word spiritual, for anything which is subjective.
You need to change the term you are using then. You are being extremely misleading otherwise. "Spiritual" has a perfectly good definition, and "fun" is not a part of it. Perhaps "nonmaterial" would be better, if that's what you are really trying to say?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 5:07 PM | | Syamsu has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 90 of 123 (486041)
10-15-2008 11:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by Syamsu
10-15-2008 6:42 AM
|
|
Rules? We don't got to enforce no steenkin' rules!
Come on people, we all have a moral duty to enforce the rules. I think this "rules" business is all in your head.
We must keep the scientists out of the ought and ought not questions... We? You and what army? Scientists have as much right to poke into those areas as any others. More so than your so called "spiritual realm" folks have a right to poke their noses into science, where it is clear most are woefully unqualified to hold opinions.
...we must safeguard religion Religion needs affirmative action now?
...and reasonable judgement besides. Right. Save "reasonable judgement" from those nasty scientists.
The tried and tested way to keep science out of morality, is to have them attribute such questions to the spiritual realm. There is no evidence that the "spiritual realm" even exists. (Your posts just keep getting stranger and stranger. What'll you come up with next?)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by Syamsu, posted 10-15-2008 6:42 AM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 91 by Syamsu, posted 10-15-2008 1:28 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 92 of 123 (486058)
10-15-2008 1:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by Syamsu
10-15-2008 1:28 PM
|
|
Re: Rules? We don't got to enforce no steenkin' rules!
The original sin is when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve are a tribal myth. So is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (When it comes to tribal myths I prefer the Coyote stories myself. They are at least entertaining. Would you like me to post some for your edification and amusement?) "Original sin" is one of the silliest concepts ever cooked up by religion. I can see why it was done though--to keep people under the domination of the shamans. If people are inherently sinful, they need the shamans to intercede for them. (Does the expression "whole cloth" mean anything to you?)
That tree now is evolution theory, with it's assumptions about morality. That you insist on evidence, means evolution theory is your morality. More nonsense. Do you realize that many or most of those who are convinced by the evidence supporting the theory of evolution already have a religious faith, and that the two are not in any way the same? (Where do you get this stuff?)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Syamsu, posted 10-15-2008 1:28 PM | | Syamsu has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by Syamsu, posted 10-15-2008 5:56 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 98 of 123 (486078)
10-15-2008 6:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by Syamsu
10-15-2008 5:40 PM
|
|
Wrong again
And as before, insisting on scientific evidence for the spiritual as you people do... We don't "insist on scientific evidence for the spiritual." Most of us don't care what you believe. But when you start making claims, most as vacuous as if pulled out of thin air, we do ask you to support your claims. That's when belief, revelation, and scripture seem to come in--as if any of those constituted evidence. That's when we ask you to provide real evidence for your claims. And you have none.
...means insisting on a science of good and evil. I am sure science or other fields of investigation are doing just fine with good and evil. We don't need the help of revelation and other unverifiable sources. In fact, they are more trouble than they are worth. They amount to "Trust me!" That was cute when Indiana Jones said it; its not so cute when said by shamans to back up some of the most outrageous claims imaginable.
So we can know that you are all pseudoscientists, eventhough it's rather vague what each of you individual perversity specifically says. You want science to leave ought etc. alone; why don't you practice what you preach and leave both scientists and science alone? You clearly know little about it and have shown us that your opinions in that regard are of little value.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Syamsu, posted 10-15-2008 5:40 PM | | Syamsu has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2