Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the rules in science
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 31 of 123 (485205)
10-06-2008 10:26 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.
But you have yet to give an example of where science is being used to make moral judgements.
Science suggests that nature is amoral. Not immoral as you sugest. The whole premise of this thread is false.
. but no science about love and whatnot, that will all be left to religion.
Science can and does study the physical basis of emotions like love etc. Do you consider this to be "wrong"?
Why on Earth should we assume that religion has anything worthwhile to say about such matters? Maybe it does. Maybe it does not. But on what basis do you assert that it must?
And again, freedom is essential to the logic of decisionmaking. This is why we can't be objective about love and such, but we can only know such things subjectively, freely. That's because if it were objective it would also be predetermined, so there would be no freedom, so no decision, so the logic would fail.
Your whole theory relies on every random act in anture being seen as a decision. What evidence do you have that physical processes are actually decisions rather than mindless acts of nature?
Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?
How exacctly does this decisions and morality of the "spiritual world" apply to nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 7:07 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 12:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 32 of 123 (485217)
10-06-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Straggler
10-06-2008 10:26 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
The logic of decisions is more fundamental in the universe than the logic of cause and effect, so everything in the universe is decided. Randomness in the context of decisionmaking means like an uninformed choice.
Ofcourse you can define words any which way you want, go ahead and define love in a non free, mechanistic way. But then people would not accept your definition, and it would lead to confusion for the freedom based definition of those words. So basically you are deceiving people when you say you can explain love, because you are using a different definition of it than common.
Besides you can investigate love productively by doctrine of reasonable judgement, which is an art not a science. And I think this is how the majority of psychologists work, without mechanistic, objectified love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2008 10:26 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2008 3:16 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 34 by Stile, posted 10-06-2008 3:35 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 33 of 123 (485242)
10-06-2008 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Syamsu
10-06-2008 12:04 PM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
The logic of decisions is more fundamental in the universe than the logic of cause and effect, so everything in the universe is decided. Randomness in the context of decisionmaking means like an uninformed choice.
Ofcourse you can define words any which way you want, go ahead and define love in a non free, mechanistic way. But then people would not accept your definition, and it would lead to confusion for the freedom based definition of those words. So basically you are deceiving people when you say you can explain love, because you are using a different definition of it than common.
All of the above is meaningless blather. As usual you fail to address a single point and continue to go on your merry way with your refuted claims intact as far as you, and you alone, are concerned.
The whole premise of the OP ignores the fact that science (and indeed common sense would agree) that nature is mindless and amoral.
Your whole position only makes sense if every act of nature is regarded as a moral choice by nature itself. Yet you refuse to examine this question because, I suspect, even you know it is ridiculous.
I ask again:
Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?
How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual world" apply to nature?
Besides you can investigate love productively by doctrine of reasonable judgement, which is an art not a science. And I think this is how the majority of psychologists work, without mechanistic, objectified love.
What exactly is it you think psychologists syudy when they investigate love? Are you saying psychologists are artists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 12:04 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 34 of 123 (485245)
10-06-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Syamsu
10-06-2008 12:04 PM


Good Point
I'm glad you see the error of assigning the investigation of love and other values to religions alone. History shows us that such an error leads to massive corruption.
Syamsu in message 29 writes:
... but no science about love and whatnot, that will all be left to religion.
Syamsu in message 32 writes:
Besides you can investigate love productively by doctrine of reasonable judgement, which is an art not a science. And I think this is how the majority of psychologists work, without mechanistic, objectified love.
Exactly. You can investigate love productively without religion at all. Religion is not required whatsoever.
What exactly do you mean by the "Doctrine of Reasonable Judgement"?
It sounds very logical and almost even objective... very similar to science.
It certainly is not necessarily spiritual or religious.
Syamsu in message 1 writes:
I don't know what happened in science that now many evolutionists seem to think "why" questions are not acknowledged as spiritual anymore, but I fail to see any good reason to tamper with a system that worked, and still works.
Because history has shown us that it doesn't work.
The Dark Ages regarded such things as spiritual, it didn't work for them.
The Manson Family regarded such things as spiritual, it didn't work for them.
Heaven's Gate regarded such things as spiritual, it didn't work for them.
Every cult you have ever heard of regards such things as spiritual, it doesn't work for any of them.
Perhaps people do not seem to think "why" question are no longer limited to the spiritual for the same reasons you brought up in Message 32. That is, because they can be derived through logic and reason. They may not be entirely under the strict, physically-empirical umbrella of pure science. But they certainly do much better when derived logically and reasonably rather than being left in the hands of religions and spiritualists.
History certainly has shown us that regarding such things as spiritual is exactly what produces a broken, worthless system.
Edited by Stile, : Added a link for some support

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 12:04 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 4:23 PM Stile has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 35 of 123 (485252)
10-06-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Stile
10-06-2008 3:35 PM


Re: Good Point
As far as I can tell Manson is a racist, which means he believes in heritable values. He also studied some scientology, which is a Darwinist derived doctrine based on the commandment to survive. This is not spiritual in the sense that it asserts objectivity of values. It is also not free in the sense that it's based on a commandment, rather then a relationship.
Reasonable judgement is many things. It is pain is bad, pleasure good. It is all in moderation. etc. etc. You seem to be scared that if people are free from pseudoscience, then they will move towards bizarre religions. But I think they more will more go to safe, tried and true religion,and reasonable judgement besides. There's a lot of extremism among evolutionists now, a lot of absolutism, an enormous pumping up of the value of the scientific method. Reasonable judgement is just too vague for these people, common knowledge they despise, many don't even acknowledge free will. So I think you are wrong about it all. When religion is subjective, then you can't easily force, or coerce anybody to join your religion, because you can't force their subjectivity.
But that's all besides the point, you are not allowed to speak in terms of ought and ought not in science. That's the rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Stile, posted 10-06-2008 3:35 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2008 5:40 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 10-07-2008 9:29 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 36 of 123 (485269)
10-06-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Syamsu
10-06-2008 4:23 PM


Re: Good Point
But that's all besides the point, you are not allowed to speak in terms of ought and ought not in science. That's the rule.
Can you give a specific example of where you think this is happening?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 4:23 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 6:37 PM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 37 of 123 (485279)
10-06-2008 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Straggler
10-06-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Good Point
As before nobody knows anymore what is subjective and what's objective when evolutionists talk about the blind, pitiless indifference. Many texts about evolution of morality are deceptive this way, some straightforward evolutionist morality of rights, the theory of natural selection itself is deceptive this way. It's one thing to talk about "success" as in differential reproductive success, when you can distinghuish it from subjective spiritual success. But if there is no subjective success acknowledged, and scientific Darwinistic success is all that is real, or more real then any other form of success, then ought becomes is, and is becomes ought.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2008 5:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2008 6:53 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2008 2:08 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2008 2:24 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 39 of 123 (485316)
10-07-2008 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Syamsu
10-06-2008 4:23 PM


Re: Good Point
Syamsu writes:
You seem to be scared that if people are free from pseudoscience, then they will move towards bizarre religions. But I think they more will more go to safe, tried and true religion,and reasonable judgement besides.
No. What I'm saying is that I'm agreeing with you.
They will not move towards religions, bizarre or "safe". They will move towards logical, reasonable judgements. Which have absolutely nothing to do with religions or spirituality, just like you said.
But that's all besides the point, you are not allowed to speak in terms of ought and ought not in science. That's the rule.
That's right, I'm agreeing with you.
This stuff isn't for strict science. And it's not for religions or spirituality either. It's just like you said, it's for logical, reasonable judgement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 4:23 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 40 of 123 (485323)
10-07-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coyote
10-06-2008 6:53 PM


Re: No Point
That there is no evidence for the spiritual realm is the point. No evidence for ought and ought not, completely subjective. When there would be evidence then we would have objective good and bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2008 6:53 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 41 of 123 (485334)
10-07-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Syamsu
10-06-2008 6:37 PM


Re: Good Point
As before nobody knows anymore what is subjective and what's objective when evolutionists talk about the blind, pitiless indifference. Many texts about evolution of morality are deceptive this way, some straightforward evolutionist morality of rights, the theory of natural selection itself is deceptive this way. It's one thing to talk about "success" as in differential reproductive success, when you can distinghuish it from subjective spiritual success. But if there is no subjective success acknowledged, and scientific Darwinistic success is all that is real, or more real then any other form of success, then ought becomes is, and is becomes ought.
Science views natural processes as mindless and amoral. This is what is meant by "blind pitiless indifference". It has nothing to do with what "ought" or "ought" not to take place. You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate where this occurs except by your own twisted interpretation of science. Interpretations borne of ignorance and some sort of anti-scientific prejudice. You are effectively arguing against your own version of science rather than a real one.
I, nor any scientist I am aware of, would brand individuals who remain childless as "failures" because in purely biological evolutionary terms they have not "succeeded". Humanity has hopefully progressed beyond such simplistic definitions to the point where the contribution an individual makes to society and humanity as a whole can be judged in more sophisticated terms. Terms however that have got nothing whatsoever to do with sprituality.
If nature is indeed mindless and amoral, incapable of morality or immorality, then descriptions such as "blind, pitiless and indifferent" are perfectly accurate and justified.
If however, as you assert, acts of nature and inanimate objects are constantly making moral decisions then you need to make this argument. So far you have repeatedly failed to do so at every available opportunity. To examine this I will ask again (for the third time)
Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?
How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual world" apply to nature?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 6:37 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 123 (485336)
10-07-2008 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Syamsu
10-06-2008 6:37 PM


Many texts about evolution of morality are deceptive this way
Perhaps an example, with a suitable extract, might help us see where you are coming from? Whenever I see texts about the evolution of morality, it is approached from a descriptive and objective point of view (as much as can be reasonably expected from a human).

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 43 by Syamsu, posted 10-07-2008 4:01 PM Modulous has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 43 of 123 (485345)
10-07-2008 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
10-07-2008 2:24 PM


I think the blind, pitiless indifference is already a good enough example.
If things in the inanimate universe can turn out alternative ways, then the "why" question applies in between the alternatives. So for somebody to say the inanimate universe is bpi, it either means there is no freedom in the universe at large (untrue), or there was no beginning to the universe (no alternatives between being and not being, also untrue), or it means there is freedom and the spirit of these decisions is judged to be pitiless and indifferent. Blind can be interpreted as an objective statement about the decisions, that the decisions aren't made according to a model of the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2008 2:24 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2008 4:21 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2008 6:38 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 4:17 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 44 of 123 (485350)
10-07-2008 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Syamsu
10-07-2008 4:01 PM


I think the blind, pitiless indifference is already a good enough example.
So they are being objective and descriptive rather than subjective and prescriptive, and this is a bad thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Syamsu, posted 10-07-2008 4:01 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 3:59 AM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 123 (485364)
10-07-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Syamsu
10-07-2008 4:01 PM


Syamsu writes:
Modulus writes:
Perhaps an example, with a suitable extract, might help us see where you are coming from? Whenever I see texts about the evolution of morality, it is approached from a descriptive and objective point of view (as much as can be reasonably expected from a human).
I think the blind, pitiless indifference is already a good enough example.
But it is not a good example because science makes no moral judgement in the way that you continually assert it does. Science simply concludes that mindless physical processes are mindless and amoral.
If things in the inanimate universe can turn out alternative ways, then the "why" question applies in between the alternatives. So for somebody to say the inanimate universe is bpi, it either means there is no freedom in the universe at large (untrue), or there was no beginning to the universe (no alternatives between being and not being, also untrue), or it means there is freedom and the spirit of these decisions is judged to be pitiless and indifferent. Blind can be interpreted as an objective statement about the decisions, that the decisions aren't made according to a model of the future.
Again none of this makes even vague sense unless you assume that physical processes and inanimate objects make moral decisions. An argument that you seem desperately unwilling to confront. I ask for the fourth time:
Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?
How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual world" apply to nature?
Why do you continually refuse to examine your own conclusions?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Syamsu, posted 10-07-2008 4:01 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024