Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


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 87 of 123 (486029)
10-15-2008 6:42 AM


Come on people, we all have a moral duty to enforce the rules. We must keep the scientists out of the ought and ought not questions, we must safeguard religion, and reasonable judgement besides. The tried and tested way to keep science out of morality, is to have them attribute such questions to the spiritual realm.
Ask yourself what damage can be done, if we just allow the rules to be broken. Would breaking the rules occasion just an intellectual annoyance, or would it occasion cataclysmic societal failure? My feeling says it's towards the last. It is just one of those things, that once you allow it, all bets are of, anything goes, including murder and mayhem. It allows for the strangest ideological beasts to be set free, and we see throughout history, that people are weak for such ideological beasts.
I have evidence from direct experience. The fact that scientists deny freedom is real, produces in me a strange ideology, that anything is better than to have a scientist in, or close to power. To have a complete nutcase in power is better than to have anybody in power that listens to science. On the other side the main ideological force is for a morality of survival.
The issue that scientists don't acknowledge freedom is related to their science of morality. They simply believe ought and ought nots are by force, just as everything else is forced.
We can see that scientists talk in terms that freedom is real in their practical daily lives, and deny it is real as scientists because there is no paper that establishes free will as scientific fact. If not handled with care, this disparity between pratice and theory, can turn into a lie on both sides. To know that freedom is not real, and lying in your daily life that it is, or to know that freedom is real and to lie that freedom is not real intellectually. Ofcourse if handled with care one can avoid such lying, but do scientists really engage such care?
Here's a local science popularizer speaking Kris Verburgh:
"one doesn't need a god to be good. Our morale is an instinct that occurs with social creatures living in groups, the good is already within us."
Is this supposed to be objective, is it subjective? Does anybody know which, including Kris himself? Scientists are not so careful, so they become liars.
So by evidence that:
- scientists are potentially liars about freedom
- they confuse subjectivity with objectivity
- that the confusion produces strange ideology in direct experience
- the attribution of oughts and ought nots to the spiritual realm is a succesful tried and tested method to avoid these problems
we should conclude to enforce the rules as they once were enforced, and still are in many places.

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by bluescat48, posted 10-15-2008 8:51 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 11:31 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 2:54 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 89 of 123 (486040)
10-15-2008 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by bluescat48
10-15-2008 8:51 AM


You should not abuse my freedom, by misusing science to try to force on me what ought and ought not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by bluescat48, posted 10-15-2008 8:51 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by bluescat48, posted 10-15-2008 3:46 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 91 of 123 (486054)
10-15-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Coyote
10-15-2008 11:31 AM


Re: Rules? We don't got to enforce no steenkin' rules!
As mentioned many times, it is the point that there is no evidence of the spiritual realm. It is the point that there is no evidence for good or evil. Faith is the point, freedom is the point.
The original sin is when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That tree now is evolution theory, with it's assumptions about morality. That you insist on evidence, means evolution theory is your morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 11:31 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 1:47 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 95 of 123 (486072)
10-15-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Straggler
10-15-2008 2:54 PM


Re: Geting off the Merry-Go-Round
Right, my argument is very simple, it's also tradition within science, because it is the main idea which occasioned the scientific revolution. You have no argument, there are a great many scientists who obey this rule in science, they are not unscientific, it is the right thing to do. Your evolutionist ideas about blind, pitiless indifference are pseudoscience, obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 2:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 6:57 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 103 by Agobot, posted 10-16-2008 4:58 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 96 of 123 (486073)
10-15-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by bluescat48
10-15-2008 3:46 PM


I am saying the ought and ought nots are free, you are saying they are evolutionist morality, or something like that.
I don't know precisely what pseudoscientific morality you espouse, and I don't have to know precisely to accuse you. I can see that you don't acknowledge a separate category from the material. So then if you don't acknowledge a separate category, then therefore your morality is material, because then all you acknowledge is material, and all material things are subject to science, and therefore you have a pseudoscience of morality.
And as before, insisting on scientific evidence for the spiritual as you people do, means insisting on a science of good and evil. So we can know that you are all pseudoscientists, eventhough it's rather vague what each of you individual perversity specifically says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by bluescat48, posted 10-15-2008 3:46 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 6:06 PM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 97 of 123 (486076)
10-15-2008 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Coyote
10-15-2008 1:47 PM


Re: Rules? We don't got to enforce no steenkin' rules!
The believers that accept evolution do so on the basis of the understanding that the spritual decides everything. Like so, in between the alternatives of there coming to be an elephant, and there not coming to be an elephant, it was decided from the spirit that there would be elephants. A believer will always look to every single last thing in terms of freedom, here the freedom between the mentioned alternatives, and the decision coming from the spiritual realm.
What decided is spiritual, unevidenced, it is always spiritual for every single last decision. Now that it is spiritual does not mean neccessarily that God did it, because there is evil in the spiritual realm too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2008 1:47 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 100 of 123 (486110)
10-16-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
10-15-2008 6:57 PM


Re: Geting off the Merry-Go-Round
You don't have any argument, much less a refutation. It is perfectly alright for a scientist to make subjective comments about beauty, and goodness and such, and attribute it to the spiritual, even in a science paper. But it is wrong for Darwin to talk about the less fit as less good, and the more fit as superior, because then he has blended ought with is. It is wrong for science popularizers to talk about the good being inherent in us by evolution as some kind of statement of fact. It is wrong for scientists to assert goodness, or the attribution of it, as a brainfunction. While ofcourse one can investigate things like the words used in morality, they are material things. But the words are used in reference to what decides, and scientists can't know about what goes on in people's hearts, except by judgement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 6:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 10-16-2008 3:40 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 102 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2008 4:07 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 104 of 123 (486164)
10-16-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Straggler
10-16-2008 4:07 AM


Re: Geting off the Merry-Go-Round
I already said, the blind pitiless indifference example was good enough, there is no use in bringig up more examples of evolutionists blending ought with is.
Your argument is just proving my case, you say there is no rule in science to distinghuish the spiritual from the material. Well that just proves that you are blending ought with is. I mean you do it in a roundabout way. First you say scientists must be objective, subjective statements are not part of science, so far so good. But then you slip through the backdoor a science about the subjectivity itself, by which the morality becomes objectified. So you say, "the beautiful moon", is not science about the moon but subjective, and then you turn around and have an objective science about how this subjective statement came to be.
I can tell you how such statements came to be, they were decided, and all decisions are from the spiritual realm. It cannot possibly come from the material, because new information is introduced at any decision, the information which way the decision turned out. So you cannot make a logical progression like; first came this and then it caused that. That logic can't be, because the information is new, so the information can't pre-exist in any cause. And at this point people in general refer to the spiritual realm, as the origin of what is new, and they do so in a subjective way. That's the way it all works, we can distinghuish ought from is, and science can progress, unhindered by argument about what is really beautiful or not, or for that matter if or not the universe shows bpi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2008 4:07 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 10-17-2008 7:27 PM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 105 of 123 (486235)
10-17-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Agobot
10-16-2008 4:58 AM


Re: Subjective interpretations
It's because there is no theory about free will in science, that everything to do with freedom is misinterpreted, misunderstood, neglected etc. So that includes creation and a creator, because creation is a free act. And scientists fail to comprehend morality in terms of freedom etc. etc.
But tell me Agobat, do you in general obey the rule that you refer all questions about what ought and ought not to the spiritual? Making a clear distinction between is and ought, material and spiritual, or do you allow to mix it up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Agobot, posted 10-16-2008 4:58 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Agobot, posted 10-17-2008 10:55 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 110 of 123 (486363)
10-19-2008 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Agobot
10-17-2008 10:55 AM


Re: Subjective interpretations
It seems you don't understand freedom. In a decision new information is introduced, the information which way the decision turns out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Agobot, posted 10-17-2008 10:55 AM Agobot has not replied

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


Message 111 of 123 (486364)
10-19-2008 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
10-18-2008 9:49 AM


Re: Subjective interpretations
So then you use 2 definitions for beauty, objective and subjective, but since the subjectivity doesn't apply to the spiritual, because you don't acknowledge the spiritual, your subjective applies to the material, and therefore your subjective is also objective.
So what happens then is that the great leader says that we all share the value of preserving our race, and we share the value of struggle with other races, which results in the best races to be preserved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 9:49 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 10-20-2008 1:09 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 117 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2008 12:36 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 122 of 123 (487254)
10-29-2008 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Modulous
10-20-2008 12:36 PM


Re: Subjective interpretations
Let's all keep in the back of our minds that it is just about 10 years ago that a science paper appeared in which an idea was raised about a scientific theory of free will. There still isn't any science paper to point to which establishes it is real as a demonstrated fact. So all these science fans do not comprehend freedom, so they also don't understand the relationship between morality and freedom.
Why don't you all just realize your ignorance about the subject, and revert to the tried and tested ways, as explained in posts before. For many years scientists have been saying as a principle matter they can't answer "why" questions, only "how". That rule should just continue, and the offenders be confronted as pseudoscientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2008 12:36 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by AdminNosy, posted 10-29-2008 9:10 AM 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