Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 2:29 PM
155 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, DrJones*, edge, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 149 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,430 Year: 3,467/19,786 Month: 462/1,087 Week: 52/212 Day: 13/39 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   the rules in science
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3663 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 123 (484556)
09-29-2008 12:52 PM


I'm getting a lot of cognitive dissonance from evolutionists when I explain them about creationism. And actually also some creationists don't get it.

As is well known, in science it's not allowed to talk in terms of what ought and ought not. Since the start of science it has been understood that science does not answer "why" questions, where why is the reason for a decision. Science can't answer why because given the same initial condition, one or the other alternative may be decided on. Science only works for when there is no alternative, or to describe limits of freedom, or to pinpoint that a decision is made, but not why the one alternative was realized instead of the other.

The way scientists since the beginnings of science have solved this problem, is simply to refer the subjective why questions, questions about what ought and ought not, to the spiritual realm. That leaves the material realm for everybody to be perfectly objective about.

The meaning of objectivity is to pass on information, not changing it. The meaning of subjectivity is to decide information. Subjectivity creates new information that didn't exist before in the universe, the information which alternative is realized.

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.

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.

I wish for everybody creationists and evolutionists alike to enforce this rule, which means that it might be talked about in a lot of threads, maybe just as many threads as the scientific method is mentioned.

So for example when somebody says science has to be objective, well then that is kind of false, because in science you have to be subjective about what ought and ought not.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-03-2008 2:20 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 10-03-2008 2:55 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 10-03-2008 3:01 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 6 by bluescat48, posted 10-03-2008 4:32 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2008 1:26 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 14 by gluadys, posted 10-05-2008 5:34 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 2 of 123 (484944)
10-03-2008 2:12 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum. I don't think Admin coaching will be able to make the OP any clearer, but some people might be able to contribute towards what might be regarded as the topic.

If it just devolves into nonsense, or a thousand million topics, it'll be closed and those topics can be proposed as threads of their own.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 123 (484946)
10-03-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
09-29-2008 12:52 PM


prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
My own view is that ideally science should be descriptive not prescriptive and objective rather than subjective.

However, human endevours are rarely ideal.

Hume brought up the Is-Ought problem:

quote:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, that expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

It is difficult enough to justify going from 'is' to 'ought' but that remains a problem for philosophers not for scientists (unless they engage in it, sometimes to poor ends).

As for objective/subjective (a different issue in itself), science should strive to be objective, but it simply cannot be perfectly objective because it's subjective agents that carry it out, and interpret it and give it any meaning. There are some good mechanisms in the scientific method for trying to eliminate this element as much as is, heh, humanly possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 09-29-2008 12:52 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 10-04-2008 7:37 PM Modulous has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 179 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 yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 5 of 123 (484948)
10-03-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
09-29-2008 12:52 PM


Syamsu writes:

quote:
that means that within science ought and ought not are not material, but spiritual.

Since when was it decided that "not material" meant "spiritual." Those are the only two things? I think we have a fallacy of the excluded middle going on here.

It would help if you would define "spiritual."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 09-29-2008 12:52 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2262 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 6 of 123 (484950)
10-03-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
09-29-2008 12:52 PM


I'm getting a lot of cognitive dissonance from evolutionists when I explain them about creationism. And actually also some creationists don't get it.

The point is that creationism is not science. It is in the same realm as astrology, alchemy & parapsychology, the spiritual realm. Science only can deal in the natural world. How can one analyze creation? Where is the evidence? Whether creation occurred as stated in Genesis can not be answered in science. Whether a supernatural being started the evolutionary process or not can not be analyzed. That is why such processes are beliefs and not theories. Unless a particular idea can be analyzed using real world equipment it cannot be scientific.

Science defined. From amicus curiae 1986, Supreme Court trial of Louisiana creation-science law, section 2:

Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena

Thus the spiritual, thus creationism is outside the realm of science.

Edited by bluescat48, : word correction


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 09-29-2008 12:52 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 7 of 123 (485029)
10-04-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
09-29-2008 12:52 PM


Decisions
As is well known, in science it's not allowed to talk in terms of what ought and ought not.

"Not allowed"? Where do you think this unbending rule comes from? Who decided this "rule" and why must we adhere to this "rule"?

I think you are confusing what science is able, or not able, to meaningfully study and this silly "rule" concept of yours.

The way scientists since the beginnings of science have solved this problem, is simply to refer the subjective why questions, questions about what ought and ought not, to the spiritual realm. That leaves the material realm for everybody to be perfectly objective about.

:rolleyes: And why must we accept this assertion of yours that there even is a supernatural realm? Never mind accept that "why questions" somehow belong there.

Since the start of science it has been understood that science does not answer "why" questions, where why is the reason for a decision.

Has it? Where do you get this from? There are numerous "why questions" science can and has answered.
Why does the Earth go round the Sun? According to the outlandish assertions made in your previous topic the Earth and all other inanimate objects are as equally capable of decisions as brained up human beings. So why does the Earth go round the sun?
Science has an answer to this "why question" but your decisions based theory does not.

Science can't answer why because given the same initial condition, one or the other alternative may be decided on. Science only works for when there is no alternative, or to describe limits of freedom, or to pinpoint that a decision is made, but not why the one alternative was realized instead of the other.

Is psychology science in your view?
It also depends what it is you are claiming makes decisions. Are we talking just conscious beings or are you, as before, extending this to all inanimate objects as well.

It seems to me that if you take your decisions theory at face value and apply it, as you have done previously, to inanimate objects then the problem that you have is answering all the why questions that science can and has answered.

Why do planets, viruses, cars, transistors etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. behave as science expects them to if they are able to "choose" to do otherwise?

It is you and your silly decisions nonsense that is unable to answer any of the "why questions". Not science.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 09-29-2008 12:52 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3663 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 8 of 123 (485066)
10-04-2008 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
10-03-2008 2:20 PM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
The point is to make a clear distinction between ought and is. So then you get 2 categories, one for is, the other for ought, the one for measurement the other for judgement, the one information is just transferred from the universe, the other information is created by judgement, descriptive and prescriptive, the material and the spiritual.

And that's what scientists have been doing by and large, they have been saying that science doesn't explain why, but how etc. They have been principally supporting 2 categories, and the separation between them. That is the proven best method, simply have 2 categories, acknowledge them both, and try to keep them separate. Not acknowledging the other category, the spiritual, that has proven to lead to messing things up, like social darwinism.

There is such a large percentage of evolutionists now who don't actually support the spiritual, who continuously mess up the objective with the subjective when the issue is about something like evolution of morality, or consciousness, etc.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-03-2008 2:20 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2008 7:49 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2008 7:51 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2008 2:23 AM Syamsu has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 179 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 yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 10 of 123 (485068)
10-04-2008 7:51 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

Unless you are claiming that God exists but has no physical effect on the universe then objective evidence should be available to support the exitence of God.

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.

If these areas have a physical basis as all the evidence indicates then why can we not study these things scientifically?

If brain damage affects peoples sense of morality why should science not examine this phenomenon.

Your silly "rule" regarding what science should and should not examine is based on some sort of dogmatic misapprehension. The only limit on that which science can investigate is that only empirical evidence is a valid basis on which to draw conclusions.

If empirical evidence exists for a given phenomenon then science can investigate that phenomenon. As long as conclusions are based on empirical evidence all sorts of questions can be answered depending on the nature of the investigation. How, what, when, which and yes - Why.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 10-04-2008 7:37 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Syamsu, posted 10-04-2008 8:09 PM Straggler has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3663 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 11 of 123 (485070)
10-04-2008 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
10-04-2008 7:51 PM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
You fail to understand that there is no objective evidence for the goodness or badness of people either.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2008 7:51 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2008 8:32 PM Syamsu has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 12 of 123 (485071)
10-04-2008 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Syamsu
10-04-2008 8:09 PM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
You fail to understand that there is no objective evidence for the goodness or badness of people either.

I never said that there was.

But why should that stop us scientifically studying the effects of brain damage on people's moral decisions? For example.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Syamsu, posted 10-04-2008 8:09 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 6:58 AM Straggler has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 123 (485087)
10-05-2008 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Syamsu
10-04-2008 7:37 PM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
The point is to make a clear distinction between ought and is.

I agreed with you that one must discriminate betweent 'ought' or prescriptive and 'is' or descriptive.

Not acknowledging the other category, the spiritual, that has proven to lead to messing things up, like social darwinism.

It's not necessary to ignore the spiritual. One simply needs to erroneously derive an ought from an is.

There is such a large percentage of evolutionists now who don't actually support the spiritual, who continuously mess up the objective with the subjective when the issue is about something like evolution of morality, or consciousness, etc.

There are a large number of people that do this. Their opinions on evolution notwithstanding. I don't see this as being common with evolutionary biologists, though. Do you have evidence?

- when they demand objective evidence for the spiritual (God), which is basically equal to demanding objective evidence of goodness or badness

If you are saying that God is a subjective concept, then those people would certainly agree with you. So just say that God is no more objectively real than the concept of goodness and you may find yourself in agreement with them.

- 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.

When anybody gets something we perceive as wrong we should bring it up as long as it is on topic. That's what we're here for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 10-04-2008 7:37 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 6:45 AM Modulous has responded

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 3035 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 14 of 123 (485095)
10-05-2008 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
09-29-2008 12:52 PM


Syamsu writes:

And actually also some creationists don't get it.

That is certainly true. One of the commonest complaints of creationists is that science does not include moral/spiritual references. They seem not to understand that these lie outside the realm of science.

Or they go to the other extreme and assume that science makes moral/spiritual claims that it does not. So one commonly sees creationists assuming that the theory of evolution prescribes atheism or immorality when it does not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 09-29-2008 12:52 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3663 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 15 of 123 (485097)
10-05-2008 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous
10-05-2008 2:23 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Concepts are material things, they consist of information, so when you say God, goodness and badness are concepts, then you are violating the rule also.

There are many scientists now reducing everything not to particles, but to information, so quite clearly in the context of information science you are violating the rule.

Besides good, bad and God, also love and hate and such have to be understood as spiritual in science. Generally all things which are said to do the job of choosing should be understood as spiritual, which basically involve why questions, or who questions as identity issues.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2008 2:23 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2008 7:27 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2008 8:27 AM Syamsu has responded

    
1
23456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019