Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the rules in science
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 46 of 123 (485401)
10-08-2008 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Modulous
10-07-2008 4:21 PM


Whatever, I suggest for you all to acknowledge the spiritual realm, so you don't make problems for science. It isn't clear that you are not blending ought with is, use words that in common knowledge are not subjective, don't annoy scientists by going anywhere near the border of what's not allowed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2008 4:21 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Stile, posted 10-08-2008 9:19 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 10-08-2008 9:36 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2008 11:52 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 47 of 123 (485402)
10-08-2008 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Syamsu
10-07-2008 4:01 PM


Just to add that the word blind can be easily interpreted objectively as explained previously, however the evolutionists use the word blind in a sense that a thing is not connected to it's future, which is false. So things do have their own future, but not all things have a model of their future.

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

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


Message 48 of 123 (485416)
10-08-2008 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 3:59 AM


What's so great about a spiritual realm?
Syamsu writes:
Whatever, I suggest for you all to acknowledge the spiritual realm, so you don't make problems for science.
But acknowledging the spiritual realm is not required. You said yourself that people can understand and pursue things like love and morals using nothing more than reasonable judgement.
You have yet to provide any reasonable judgement to explain why such things should be acknowledged in a spiritual sense.
You also have not been able to show anything that can be gained from acknowledging the spiritual realm can't equally be gained through reasonable judgement.
We have lots and lots of examples where acknowledging a spiritual realm makes for some very unreasonable judgements.
So, if acknowledging a spiritual realm can be very, very negative. And there's nothing uniquely positive about it... why should anyone acknowledge it?
Why shouldn't we just use logical, reasonable judgement?
Why add on superfluous baggage?

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 51 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 12:10 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 49 of 123 (485418)
10-08-2008 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 3:59 AM


It isn't clear that you are not blending ought with is, use words that in common knowledge are not subjective, don't annoy scientists by going anywhere near the border of what's not allowed.
So let me get this right:
1: Don't use subjective terms, that's not allowed.
2: Don't use objective terms, it comes across as blind and pitiless.
You must be able to see why everyone is a little confused. I once again call upon you for examples. Perhaps one example of confusing subjective terms in science and one example of pitiless objective terms in science. In both cases, it would also be useful to us to see you reword them into acceptable-speak.
Otherwise, I'll just have to assume the way things are is pretty good and since your advice/critique seems self-contradictory I'll have to ignore it and look to other critiques, sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 3:59 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 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

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 51 of 123 (485425)
10-08-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Stile
10-08-2008 9:19 AM


Re: What's so great about a spiritual realm?
As before, to make the distinction clear between ought and is, we have 2 categories, the material and the spiritual. Reasonable judgement is spiritual, all judgement is spiritual, it is not objective. And that is great because having that clear distinction, now I can make science about decisions, unhindered by judgementalism of any kind. While Straggler for instance, he is stuck in this thought that the whole inanimate universe is bpi. He's not going to get anywhere distinguishing between different decision processes in the universe with such a finding which meaning is unclear to everybody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Stile, posted 10-08-2008 9:19 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Stile, posted 10-08-2008 1:24 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 52 of 123 (485426)
10-08-2008 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Coyote
10-08-2008 11:52 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2008 11:52 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2008 12:43 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2008 2:30 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 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

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


Message 54 of 123 (485431)
10-08-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 12:10 PM


All judgement is not spiritual
Syamsu writes:
Reasonable judgement is spiritual, all judgement is spiritual, it is not objective.
I think you may be confusing "subjective" with "spiritual". They are not the same thing. By 'spiritual', I was assuming you meant something relating to the divine or religious. Perhaps supernatural, like angels or God. Perhaps gaining enlightenment from non-material sources. Something like that.
I agree with you that all spiritual judgements are subjective judgements ("not objective"). But not all subjective judgements are spiritual in nature.
Like this:
------------------------
                 |      Subjective      |
                 |                      |
                 |       ---------------|
-------------    |      |               |
| Objective |    |      |   Spiritual   |
-------------    |      |               |
                 ------------------------
I can think of many reasonable, non-objective judgements that are also not spiritual:
Buying a car that is good on gas, or one with big towing capacity are both reasonable judgements. They are subjective judgements, there is nothing spiritual about either of them. There is also nothing scientific or objective about either of them.
Wanting chocolate ice-cream is a reasonable judgement. It is subjective, and not spiritual in any way. It is obviously not scientific, or objective as well.
People can understand and pursue love and morals using reasonable judgement in a subjective, completely non-spiritual way.
And that is great because having that clear distinction, now I can make science about decisions, unhindered by judgementalism of any kind.
This is also possible with the simple distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. Science is about objective decisions, unhindered by subjective judgementalism of any kind.
Notice how I did not need to bring up any spiritual realm.
Logical, reasonable, subjective judgement is quite possible without bringing in anything spiritual. This is quite capable of handling the oughts and ought nots that science and objectivity do not consider. The division you seek is quite possible without bringing in any sort of spiritual realm. In fact, this division actually exists and is exactly what defines current science. Perhaps it is your confusion between 'subjective' and 'spiritual' that has hindered your ability to see that your idea is already in place.
Perhaps it will help if you identify an ought or ought not that you think only comes from the spiritual, one you think is impossible to come from non-spiritual subjectivity.
If you can identify such a thing, perhaps then we can look at how the spiritual realm would be required for certain situations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 12:10 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 2:13 PM Stile has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 55 of 123 (485436)
10-08-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Coyote
10-08-2008 12:43 PM


Re: Spiritual realm?
The point was to keep the oughts and ought nots outside of science. The categorization into a spiritual and material realm does that successfully, and you don't show any other way. Perhaps you want the oughts and oughts not within science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2008 12:43 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 56 of 123 (485438)
10-08-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Stile
10-08-2008 1:24 PM


Re: All judgement is not spiritual
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Stile, posted 10-08-2008 1:24 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2008 3:04 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 59 by Stile, posted 10-08-2008 3:08 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 57 of 123 (485439)
10-08-2008 2:30 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.
Ought and ought not has got nothing to do with the "spiritual realm" whatever that might be.
This does not mean, as you seem to falsely assume, that anyone is saying that science can form some kind of objective morality either.
It is not, as you falsely assume, an either or situation.
Morality is a subjective human construct that is not dependent either on science or the "spiritual realm". We can make moral choices without either of these having any input.
Your ongoing implication that anyone who does not recognise the "spiritual realm" is some kind of cold hearted automaton seeking to objectify everything including morality is not only wrong but ignorant, stupid and and frankly arrogant.
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.
Yes it is "vague". Just as human subjectivity is "vague" and just as morality is "vague". None of this however implies that there is any worth or veracity to your even more vague and ill thought out "spiritual realm".
If you can give us some more definites about how this "spiritual realm" is involved with morality that would make things much less vague.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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 61 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 5:22 PM Straggler has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 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

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


Message 59 of 123 (485445)
10-08-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 2:13 PM


Clear distinctions
Syamsu writes:
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.
Let me try again, from scratch.
First off, every single claim (judgement/observation/view) falls into two categories: objective and subjective.
Objective claims are those which can be verified. Sciene restricts itself to objective, verified claims.
Example: The sun is hotter than the earth.
Example: A ball in a vacuum (no air pressure/resistance) on earth will drop down.
Subjective claims are everything else. Anything that cannot be verified.
Example: I want a fuel efficient car.
Example: Being on a rollercoaster is fun.
Or perhaps you seem to be talking about two other divisions such as material and immaterial.
Material is obvious, we have rocks and water and frogs and everything else.
Immaterial can be thoughts, ideas, feelings, immagination. However, there are many current studys that seem to be noticing that all these things are tied in to the material realm as well. This would also include (but isn't limited to) everything you've mentioned so far about a spiritual realm. Everything you mention about a spiritual realm exists as a thought or idea or emotion or immagination. But perhaps you just haven't fully explained what you mean by spiritual yet.
Can you identify something about this spiritual realm you keep talking about that is more than an idea, feeling, or imagination? Something that provides anything that cannot equally be provided by other more mundane thoughts, emotions or imaginary creations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 2:13 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 5:07 PM Stile has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 60 of 123 (485470)
10-08-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Stile
10-08-2008 3:08 PM


Re: Clear distinctions
So then the material get's it's acknowledgement and there are these things in an unnamed category which are tied to the material. That's not easily practicable to distinghuish, and seems prejudicial towards material.
Fun is a thing in the spiritual domain. That's how I use the word spiritual, for anything which is subjective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Stile, posted 10-08-2008 3:08 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2008 5:30 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 65 by Stile, posted 10-08-2008 8:31 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024