David Mo
Philosopher
If you are unable to tell me what it was about and what method it was studied with, how do you want us to discuss it?
Hawking says there are no gods
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism stephen hawking
- Status
If you are unable to tell me what it was about and what method it was studied with, how do you want us to discuss it?
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Here is a university educated person about being right:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shift-mind/201103/why-is-it-so-important-be-right
Now here is how it works down to 2 individuals and not just in this thread:
Someone to someone else: You are wrong.
Someone else: I don't care about your version of right and wrong anymore, because I have learned to do it differently.
That is it. We are doing culture and I do it outside mainstream western culture.
So here it is for the collective answers about what happens if someone is wrong:
I had to question it, because to the mainstream I am wrong because I am different qua being a special need persons. There are things I can't do that a normal person can do and that makes me wrong to them.
You all, who answer to that effect, are them. You are inside western culture and I am outside.
I have been that since around 10 years old and I have learned to cope:
I am wrong as a fact and I am proud of that, because I still have a life. You didn't win, because I am still here.
QED
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shift-mind/201103/why-is-it-so-important-be-right
Now here is how it works down to 2 individuals and not just in this thread:
Someone to someone else: You are wrong.
Someone else: I don't care about your version of right and wrong anymore, because I have learned to do it differently.
That is it. We are doing culture and I do it outside mainstream western culture.
So here it is for the collective answers about what happens if someone is wrong:
- You die. You test that and answer no and notice that you didn't die.
- You are not in reality. You test that by noticing that you must be in reality, because they keep over time telling you that you are not in reality, but that requires for them to answer you, so you are in reality.
- You are not thinking. You test that by noticing that in order for you to question whether you are thinking, it requires that you are thinking.
- You are a lot of negatives. You test that by noticing you can't observe a negative. All negatives are not concrete and only happen in a mind. The same is so for them, they can't observe that you are a negative unless you experience one. Since you don't experience a negative, it must be in them that the negative takes place and they are projecting it on you.
I had to question it, because to the mainstream I am wrong because I am different qua being a special need persons. There are things I can't do that a normal person can do and that makes me wrong to them.
You all, who answer to that effect, are them. You are inside western culture and I am outside.
I have been that since around 10 years old and I have learned to cope:
I am wrong as a fact and I am proud of that, because I still have a life. You didn't win, because I am still here.
QED
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
"No, you have to hold yourself to these arbitrary standards, even though you claim that's not how the field works, whereas I don't have to apply any standards because I say so."
A nice succinct summary of the thread I suppose...
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
Sure, you could mix up the definition of wrong meaning 'factually incorrect' and the version meaning 'dismissive value judgment', and use that obfuscation to call people bullies for calling your statements incorrect.
It's just a very dishonest tactic...
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
There are no facts outside your mind, because all facts are based on rules. So say that I am factually wrong in the strong sense mean that I can't do something. But I can, I can thinking differently than you and thus it is fact in both cases. You are as a fact different than me and I am as a fact different than you, so neither of us can be factually wrong.
What you are saying is that I use the wrong rule, but to say that I use the wrong rule is not a judgement of a fact. It is a judgement between 2 rules, yours and mine and based on your rule my rule is wrong. That is not science. That is morality, because I ought to use your rule and not mine.
The joke is that if it is a fact that I am wrong, I can't be factually wrong, because it is a fact. For that to be case I both have to be wrong and not to be wrong.
So you decide. If it is a fact, what I am wrong, it must be with reason, logic and evidence/truth that it is so. So you have just stated a fact, so what is the problem? It is a fact, that I am wrong and gravity is a fact.
But in effect that is that not what is going. What is going on it that you want me to become like you and I point out that I don't have to:
That is it. We are doing culture and I do it outside mainstream western culture.
So here it is for the collective answers about what happens if someone is wrong:
- You die. You test that and answer no and notice that you didn't die.
- You are not in reality. You test that by noticing that you must be in reality, because they keep over time telling you that you are not in reality, but that requires for them to answer you, so you are in reality.
- You are not thinking. You test that by noticing that in order for you to question whether you are thinking, it requires that you are thinking.
- You are a lot of negatives. You test that by noticing you can't observe a negative. All negatives are not concrete and only happen in a mind. The same is so for them, they can't observe that you are a negative unless you experience one. Since you don't experience a negative, it must be in them that the negative takes place and they are projecting it on you.
I know, you get it differently than me and you know that I don't get it, because I am factually wrong.
But I am still here and all of you still have answered so far, so I can't be dead. I am connected to reality, because reality answers in a meaningful manner and I know this, so I am thinking and I am not a negative, because it makes sense to me.
And how do you know this?
"There are no facts" is a statement of facts. How do you know the idea that there are no fact isn't just in your head?
Again this is the problem with your insane "If I just say everything is right, nothing is wrong, and everything said is the same I'm magically right." It's self-contradictory.
You're asking us to accept absolute randomness as dogma. You (and David as well) are demanding we accept your "Every body lives in their own individual self realized fantasy land" as absolute truth so you can dismiss everything else everyone else says.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
Because I can't see facts! I have experiences of the "outside", but if I call that facts, that is a rule in my mind.
All cases of epistemology are in effect different rules of how to understand experience.
Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.
To justify is in the mind. You can't see, hold(tangible) or otherwise observe as independent of your mind your justifications.
My point is that we share some and are different for others. For those, where we are different, I am wrong to you, but you still haven't given any justification independent of your mind, because you haven't told me, how you observe, that I am wrong. I am objective to you, so you only know of me, through observation, so how do you know, that I am wrong?
You don't and I accept that you do it differently that me, because I accept that to you, I am wrong. I truly accept that. I just don't accept it myself, because I have found no evidence/observation of it and thus have no justification.
You want science!!! Here it is:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shift-mind/201103/why-is-it-so-important-be-right
I had to pause to consider right and wrong to have a life, because I am outside normal western culture reason, logic and evidence, because I am a special needs person. For some part of me, I am without normal western culture reason, logic and evidence and I live that every day so to have a life, I had to learn this:
I am wrong and I am proud of it, because I still have a life despite being wrong.
That is the psychology of being different and I have mastered that. If I hadn't, I would be dead; so heavily drugged and/or really out of my mind, that I couldn't do this. I can, because I am wrong and I am proud of it, because I still have a life despite being wrong.
I really mean this: I sincerely hope you have a good enough life and that you can cope. I just don't have your life for some differences and I accept, that you don't accept the differences.
Regards
David Mo
Philosopher
No. This is a summary of what you think you understood.
In any case, if you have other less arbitrary criteria, it would be a good idea to put them here. We could compare them. That is how a debate works.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#Empi
So how do you know that I am wrong, translates to: What are your sense experiences?
Please state those. You know, give evidence for your claim, other than just stating it. You have stated a fact, now back it up with evidence.
Tommy, you need to fix the goalposts in one place. They are floating about untethered in your open sea of a mind.
Of course no one can prove anything to you when the posts keep moving randomly. Not by documented science nor by even philosophy.
Of course no one can prove anything to you when the posts keep moving randomly. Not by documented science nor by even philosophy.
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 3,578
The goal posts are as follows:
- Physical facts.
- Social facts(biology as culture).
- Moral facts(biological behavior in and between humans).
- Metaphysics(the holy grain of what reality really is and in effect is a belief).
- What matters or rather how reality matters in practice and is useful.
The end point is that they can't reduce what matters down to pure objective physical facts/knowledge/what ever.
That is it.
What matters to them, is different to me. Even if I am factually wrong, it is morality to claim that I ought to stop being factually wrong.
Here is how that goes:
They have the factually correct behavior.
I have the factually incorrect behavior.
Therefore I ought to stop and do as they do.
The problem is, that it is a fact, as they themselves point out, that I do a factually incorrect behavior and I keep asking them this: If it is a fact, that I am doing factually incorrect behavior, what is the problem?
Note factually incorrect behavior is not just about me, that pertains to religion, politics, what science is, morality, Woo, CT and what not.
I am just standing on goal for all the factually wrong humans and ask the scientists, the following question: If this is a general fact for a lot of humans. what they are factually wrong, how can that be a problem, because it is fact!!!
And as science goes, they can't point to a scientific law/theory of being factually correct versus being factually incorrect, because they are doing morality.
Even if it is a fact, there are no gods, it is a fact, that some people believe in that and all they reply with is not science. It is morality.
It is wrong to believe without evidence or being factually wrong. The problem is that the sentence itself is without evidence.
This is a really simple if not useful position. I'm really not at all understanding why so many posters are arguing across Tommy or disgusted with him. The ESL word salad gets opaque at times. His philosophical point is so simple that he can't be under-qualified to make it, and nobody else can argue with it no matter what their qualifications are. Same goes for his starting premise that he can only experience the world through his senses. So he enjoys navel-gazing, so what?
And reset.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Not necessarily.
None of it is philosophy. Did you also miss what I said: negative results don't get published thus skewing meta analyses.
He has suggested a solution that all medical studies be registered at the outset so a record of the non-published research is kept.
@Mo
If you don't get that, just ask. Don't make **** up to fit your bizarro belief about what research does and does not get published.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
I'm not saying that a scientist could be researching something without publishing it. I'm talking about how we know if a subject has been the subject of scientific studies or not.
If a pharmacist tells you that it is scientifically proven that prayer cures cancer, how do you know if it is true that there is a scientific study on the subject? Just because the pharmacist tell you that? In my country drug manufacturers ought to test and register its products before commercialize them. Is it not so in your country?
How can you tell whether a specific topic has been scientifically investigated or not?
If you answer this question, perhaps we can return to the original topic.
By the way, I don't like to dance.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
I think you are moving some goalposts, here. Suddenly it is not about whether something is scientific, but about how that is verified. And in this case, publishing in peer-reviewed journals is on way.
However, since you brought up the topic of pharmaceuticals, I can tell you that a lot of research is going on, unpublished. All such research is in order to discover new things with a market potential. Publication happens when:
1) There is a real discovery that has, however, been judged to have no market potential. (Researchers can put it on here resume, and any competitors who might actually want to use it are now unable to patent it)
2) It is incorporated in a new marketable item, but you need publication for approval by authorities, in which case you publish in the most obscure magazine you can find.
The problem is, if you publish your discovery, you need to take out patents as well (which is frightfully expensive), otherwise anyone can exploit it commercially.
Hans
David Mo
Philosopher
Suddenly? I've been asking the same question over and over again since 22nd October 2018, 06:36 AM. See my comment 3950.
If it hasn't been published anywhere or in a place so dark that you and I can't find, you and I have no way of knowing if science deals with that issue that mysterious chemist has investigated. Be it a great discovery or not to you and me it does not serve us in this debate.
Apart from that I do not believe that pharmacists investigate the existence of God.
Too true. but the believers cannot handle that and deserve having no attention paid
- Status