Science is bad!

Tommy Jeppesen

Illuminator
T
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
3,578
I got your attention, right?!! :)

Well, I leave science be for a moment and claim something else.

Me: Religion is bad!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: Religion does more bad than good!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: The world would be a better place if we replaced religion with science!
Someone: How do you know that? Who is that we? With what authority do you speak as a we and for all the world? How do you intend to replace religion? Can science do normative claims?

That is the short version and a practical example of what it means to be a skeptic. It is also why skeptics can be a pain in ***.
I as a human of course act and do stuff, but the moment someone goes we and the world, I go skeptic. That has nothing in particular to do with religion or politics, rather the moment someone in practice "plays" we and the world, I "bite" as a skeptic.
Someone: Why do you do that? Can't we agree that world would be a better place if we all became rational, logical, coherent and only used evidence and dropped beliefs?
Me: How do you know that this is possible?

Now I will answer, if you want to discuss how we might achieve a better world; i.e. I will try to be positive. But if you intent to go the route of in effect - "I only accept non-subjective evidence" I will "bite". That is philosophy, not science and it has been tried and it doesn't work.
So yes, I will try to be positive and not skeptical/negative about a better world, but I don't do - "I know with rationality, logical, objectivity, coherence and evidence and without subjective beliefs how we can achieve a better world".
It has been tried for over 2000 years now, both in philosophy and religion and it doesn't work!!!
So if you think you can do it using science, you are in all likelihood not doing science, but philosophy and/or religion. You just haven't realized it!

With regards
 
So basically you want a softball setup so you can repeate your tired pompous "Wise Man On the Mountain" routine and tell us how wrong we are?

Sorry, pass. Your coffee shop pseudo-intellectual shtick wasn't impressive when you hijacked threads with and it ain't impressive here.
 
Last edited:
The world would be a better place if people didn't try to use their subjective experiences as if they were objective realities.

The world would not be a better place if people didn't have subjective experiences.

****

To further elaborate: people need to dream, to fantasise, to stop thinking and immerse themselves in sensory excursion, in sensual delight… to party! The world is enriched by personal, subjective experience. But that's all it should be. For understanding right action, science is needed.

If "religion" was kept to a private practice which wasn't foisted onto others, or societies, or into realms better dealt with objectively via the tool of science, I would not care. It's distorting lens and manacles pretending to be liberation are a guaranteed way to make the world a worse place.

I don't accept that "it has been tried for over 2000 years". There's been a mashup and madhouse bunch of clashes and ting… no concerted effort to become scientific even yet.

Where science has been able to flourish, the world has indeed become a better place, as evidenced by the improved quality of life in the sense of health, longevity, reduction in violence and improved understanding of how to help outliers such as autistic people etc., and advances in understanding and acceptance of differences etc.

Where religion is the dominating force in a culture, bigotry and xenophobia rule, and active discouragement of original thought is endemic.
 
Last edited:
Navel gazing philosophy is of no value whatsoever, save to grant it's practitioners brief and fleeting feelings of pretend superiority over those they wish they were at least able to intellectually equal. Aside from that it is fluff.
 
Okay, so it is "better*" in practice to claim that you can do we, humanity, science and reality.
The "fun" part is that I am a skeptic and I can't replicate that - i.e. I can understand science as a hammer, but I can't replicate that it is a multi-tool, which works on everything.

As to wrong and all that; if you in any sense know that another human can be wrong in any sense, I would like to hear how you know that.
*As to "better" I don't know that I have a better or worse life than you because that is subjective. I know that we in all likelihood have different lives as how we make sense of the world, but that is something else.

Now how do you know if something is of value? What evidence can you give? What methodology do you use and how do you measure?

So far we have been talking past each other. I accept and hold science as a valuable method, but I haven't been able to replicate that it is a multi-tool, nor do I claim that I can do "we as humanity ought to...". I am willing to learn about that, but not through philosophy, religion nor pseudo-science.

With regards
 
I'd add that when your philosophy contradicts reality, you just did an ad-absurdum disproof of said philosophy. Doubly so when actually it's just illustrating one's own ignorance.

The fact of the matter is, we DON'T have to postulate that science works or that evidence works. Yes, we can't 100% prove it with binary logic, but actually all that the Münchhausen trilemma actually did was illustrate the limits of binary logic in describing the universe. The problem simply disappears if you use probabilities instead.

The fact of the matter is that while indeed some things can be squeezed into 1 or 0 probabilities, which is all that the particular case of binary logic is, some can be closer to 1 and some can be closer to 0. You are still more rational to take the belief or route that's got a higher probability of yielding true results, even if you can't prove the probability to be exactly 1. In fact, most of the time it isn't 1.

Choosing a method and expecting it to yield useful results can be expressed as a conditional probability, P(X|Y). Where X is the outcome you expect, e.g., that it will produce knowledge that is correct within the approximation level you work at, and Y is the method you apply for that. And some Y have shown to be more reliable (cause that probability to be higher) than others.
 
Lack of 100% absolute probability, therefore Immortality, therefore Bigfoot, therefore Woo.
 
Subjective for fun, objective for work.

Compassionate interaction for human relations.

"Better life" comparisons between you and I is indeed meaningless. "Better" in society/historical development is objectively measurable, given the intuitive human comprehension of relations: co-operation results in less confrontational shock and pain. Pretty basic, easily learned, growing up stuff.

Has there ever been a human society where murder and rape are joyful occurrences? I think we can trust human nature to know that it's better to be kind and peaceful and happy than to be stressed out all the time and murderous and callous.

I think it's been demonstrated that no religion has ever achieved a society without the latter behaviour. With objective (i.e. science-led) measures we can make better progress towards it (I mean a society without, or with much reduced instances of, the latter).

By the way, your analogy of science as a hammer is begging the question and misrepresenting the process of science. It's not an impressive conceit (as in poetic contrivance/metaphorical vehicle, please don't run off offended as one other has done without acknowledging the use I make of this word, even after twice having explained it).
 
HansMustermann said:
I'd add that when your philosophy contradicts reality, you just did an ad-absurdum disproof of said philosophy. Doubly so when actually it's just illustrating one's own ignorance.

The fact of the matter is, we DON'T have to postulate that science works or that evidence works. Yes, we can't 100% prove it with binary logic, but actually all that the Münchhausen trilemma actually did was illustrate the limits of binary logic in describing the universe. The problem simply disappears if you use probabilities instead.

The fact of the matter is that while indeed some things can be squeezed into 1 or 0 probabilities, which is all that the particular case of binary logic is, some can be closer to 1 and some can be closer to 0. You are still more rational to take the belief or route that's got a higher probability of yielding true results, even if you can't prove the probability to be exactly 1. In fact, most of the time it isn't 1.

Choosing a method and expecting it to yield useful results can be expressed as a conditional probability, P(X|Y). Where X is the outcome you expect, e.g., that it will produce knowledge that is correct within the approximation level you work at, and Y is the method you apply for that. And some Y have shown to be more reliable (cause that probability to be higher) than others.
Click to expand...

We are talking past each other - you used you as something I could do. Notice you didn't use we, you separate us into 2 different things, you and I.
So for you use of work and useful it only works for we if it is both useful and works for both of us.
That is not a given!!!

So here is an example from science; take a sufficiently large group of adults, brain-scan them while you give them individually the following ethical dilemma. You are hiding together with other people from a group of soldiers, who in all likelihood will kill you all if they find you all. Now in your arms you have your newborn baby. Do you choose to smother your baby in order for you to lessen the chance of the soldiers finding of you?!!
BTW brains work differently as the different answers take place in different areas of the different brains. Though most brain are similar in their structure.
So work can have different meanings. :) That is also the case with useful.

In other words look out for the difference between I, you and we before you take for granted that there is a we.
BTW you can't at the same time and in the same sense smother and not smother your baby all probabilities asides.

As for proof, yes, I am a pragmatic, if it works it is proof/true :)
 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/you?s=t

You know the dumbassery has hit a new low, when the one trying to sound smart is down to pretending to be too stupid to understand a perfectly normal and common usage of some of the most common English words. Not to mention schizophrenic enough to build whole CT-level hidden meanings from exactly which of the interchangeable words have been used in a sentence. And for that matter to be too stupid to understand that an "if" is not the same thing as asserting that your brain works in a certain way. It's actually one step down from even solipsism, really.
 
Last edited:
But to address this too:

Tommy Jeppesen said:
you used you as something I could do
Click to expand...

1. There was an "if" in there. It's not the same as assuming you personally can do it.

2. Just to make it clear, the precondition there, that thing you contest being able to do, and that you launch into all that twaddle about brains working differently to justify contesting it... is the use of elementary probabilities, i.e., fractions. I.e., basic arithmetic.

But see, whether an argument or a solution to a supposed problem are actually correct, doesn't depend on it being understandable by the village idiot. Pythagoras doesn't become false just because some guy might be too stupid or uneducated to do the required multiplication, addition, and taking a square root too. Nor by his being unable to understand geometry.

Yes, a solution to a stated problem may require a certain level of competence. Lacking it is just your problem, not some kind of "I WIN" wildcard.

IF you are as stupid or ignorant as you seem to claim there, namely to the point where you're even unable to understand the concept of probability, then all it says is you shouldn't be having this talk. It doesn't mean you just won an argument by just claiming to be too stupid to have it.
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Okay, so it is "better*" in practice to claim that you can do we, humanity, science and reality.
The "fun" part is that I am a skeptic and I can't replicate that - i.e. I can understand science as a hammer, but I can't replicate that it is a multi-tool, which works on everything.

As to wrong and all that; if you in any sense know that another human can be wrong in any sense, I would like to hear how you know that.
*As to "better" I don't know that I have a better or worse life than you because that is subjective. I know that we in all likelihood have different lives as how we make sense of the world, but that is something else.

Now how do you know if something is of value? What evidence can you give? What methodology do you use and how do you measure?

So far we have been talking past each other. I accept and hold science as a valuable method, but I haven't been able to replicate that it is a multi-tool, nor do I claim that I can do "we as humanity ought to...". I am willing to learn about that, but not through philosophy, religion nor pseudo-science.

With regards
Click to expand...

We as humanity ought to learn the meaning of words before we use them.




rep·li·cate
verb
verb: replicate; 3rd person present: replicates; past tense: replicated; past participle: replicated; gerund or present participle: replicating
ˈrepliˌkāt/

1.
make an exact copy of; reproduce.
"it might be impractical to replicate eastern culture in the west"
synonyms: copy, reproduce, duplicate, recreate, repeat, perform again;
clone
"the technology would be hard to replicate"
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Okay, so it is "better*" in practice to claim that you can do we, humanity, science and reality.
The "fun" part is that I am a skeptic and I can't replicate that - i.e. I can understand science as a hammer, but I can't replicate that it is a multi-tool, which works on everything.

As to wrong and all that; if you in any sense know that another human can be wrong in any sense, I would like to hear how you know that.
*As to "better" I don't know that I have a better or worse life than you because that is subjective. I know that we in all likelihood have different lives as how we make sense of the world, but that is something else.

Now how do you know if something is of value? What evidence can you give? What methodology do you use and how do you measure?

So far we have been talking past each other. I accept and hold science as a valuable method, but I haven't been able to replicate that it is a multi-tool, nor do I claim that I can do "we as humanity ought to...". I am willing to learn about that, but not through philosophy, religion nor pseudo-science.

With regards
Click to expand...

Science is also an inclined plane, a rocket and the computer you are using so trying to restrict it to a hammer is just your way of doing woo.
 
Craig4 said:
I recognize all the words but when you put them together it gets a bit... odd.
Click to expand...

You are not aware, young Padawan...

Reality has always been buzzing with pilgrims whose essences are nurtured by inseparability. Humankind has nothing to lose. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the galaxy via frequencies.
Click to expand...

And...

If you have never experienced this lightning bolt on a cosmic scale, it can be difficult to exist. It can be difficult to know where to begin. Wanderer, look within and change yourself.
Click to expand...

From whence those quotes? A philosophical gibberish generator. Looks deep and meaningful, means nothing. Like philosophy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom