The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[Thermal]

We've had this meta-debate already in the Invisible Dragon Thread.

Demanding a specific level of certainty only in one topic for no clearly defined reason is dishonest. It's basically just another version of JAQing off.

Ted: "Is there polka dotted bear riding on my roof?
Bill: "No."
Ted: "Is there an invisible, undetectable dragon in my garage?"
Bill: "No."
Ted: "Is there a teapot orbiting Saturn?"
Bill: "No."
Ted: "Is there a God?"
Bill: "Oh jeez... well I don't know... I mean I can't say for certain... I don't want to make a definitive statement... let me hem and haw for 20 minutes before saying 'I can't be sure'...."

Then yes let's cut the crap, Bill is saying there is a God.

And this is, essentially, the same dishonest argument.

Ted: "Do we understand every single step of every single process of how the endocrine system handles hormone production?"
Bill: "Well no, but science will figure it out one day."
Ted: "Do we understand every single step of every single process of how the neurological system produces the mental state generally referred to as consciousness?"
Bill: "No and that means it's a philosophical debate and that's where God has to have hidden our souls."

Same thing. Putting something you want to be true in one specific unanswered question for no reason. Classic Woo of the Gaps.

Dude, your assumtions about what posters reeeeeeaaaallly think makes your posts a study in closed-mindedness.

For having such a declared contempt for woo, you rely heavily on mind reading.

 

[RedStapler]

Dude, your assumtions about what posters reeeeeeaaaallly think makes your posts a study in closed-mindedness.
For having such a declared contempt for woo, you rely heavily on mind reading.

"Closed-mindedness" is the #1 term used by woo slingers. For some reason they think, shaming someone into accepting or at least discussing their weird claims is legit tactic..

How about you start being open minded e.g. to the thought that there actually are no gods? You don't want to? Wow, that's very closed-minded!

Refusing woo like "There is a hard problem of consciousness" or "You are not allowed to say that there are no gods" is not closed minded, it's just smart.

 

[Thermal]

"Closed-mindedness" is the #1 term used by woo slingers. For some reason they think, shaming someone into accepting or at least discussing their weird claims is legit tactic..

I'm sure saying 'good morming' is a term high up there too. Got a mindless canned-answer extrapolation for that, too?

How about you start being open minded e.g. to the thought that there actually are no gods? You don't want to? Wow, that's very closed-minded!

As I said repeatedly on the other thread, I'm an athiest. It's difficult to respond to very young posters who are not reading the thread, but feel compelled to be snotty and repeatedly deliver personal comments to members they know nothing about. Please stop. It annoys the adults.

Refusing woo like "There is a hard problem of consciousness" or "You are not allowed to say that there are no gods" is not closed minded, it's just smart.

Smart is reading for comprehension. Give it a shot.

 

[RedStapler]

I'm sure saying 'good morming' is a term high up there too. Got a mindless canned-answer extrapolation for that, too?

Adopting the Psion-style, I see. Categorically declare everything I say as mindless and juvenile while leaving the actual point unanswered. Nice.

As I said repeatedly on the other thread, I'm an athiest. It's difficult to respond to very young posters who are not reading the thread, but feel compelled to be snotty and repeatedly deliver personal comments to members they know nothing about. Please stop. It annoys the adults.

Correction: An atheist who just could not stop talking about a prime mover. Also more Psion-style.

Smart is reading for comprehension. Give it a shot.

Smart is also rejecting your gaslighting and browbeating. Honesty is a thing, give it a shot.

 

[Thermal]

Adopting the Psion-style, I see. Categorically declare everything I say as mindless and juvenile while leaving the actual point unanswered. Nice.

The 'point' was pointless. You don't read posts, but have a roll-eye at the ready.

Actually, there is a recently vacated position on the forum that is right up your alley.

Correction: An atheist who just could not stop talking about a prime mover. Also more Psion-style.

I respond to questions asked, and a lot of questions were asked. That's how adults do things. Children employ argumentum ad emoticon.

Smart is also rejecting your gaslighting and browbeating. Honesty is a thing, give it a shot.

Here's some honesty for you: in the Dragon thread, my position was that Sagan's analogy applies to testable claims, and that a prime mover style god (which I don't believe in) wouldn't work in it. That's it. Our, shall we say, lower wattage bulbs on the marquee, tried to engage their mind reading abilities to re-declare what I reeeeeaaaally meant.

Just read the posts without trying to read into them. Think about them for a second or two. You'll get the hang of big boy discussion.

 

[Wudang]

The 'point' was pointless. You don't read posts, but have a roll-eye at the ready.

Actually, there is a recently vacated position on the forum that is right up your alley.



I respond to questions asked, and a lot of questions were asked. That's how adults do things. Children employ argumentum ad emoticon.



Here's some honesty for you: in the Dragon thread, my position was that Sagan's analogy applies to testable claims, and that a prime mover style god (which I don't believe in) wouldn't work in it. That's it. Our, shall we say, lower wattage bulbs on the marquee, tried to engage their mind reading abilities to re-declare what I reeeeeaaaally meant.

Just read the posts without trying to read into them. Think about them for a second or two. You'll get the hang of big boy discussion.

I'd agree and just add that some people need to note that often to understand the meaning of a post you need to read the one it is replying to.

 

[RedStapler]

The 'point' was pointless. You don't read posts, but have a roll-eye at the ready.

Actually, there is a recently vacated position on the forum that is right up your alley.



I respond to questions asked, and a lot of questions were asked. That's how adults do things. Children employ argumentum ad emoticon.



Here's some honesty for you: in the Dragon thread, my position was that Sagan's analogy applies to testable claims, and that a prime mover style god (which I don't believe in) wouldn't work in it. That's it. Our, shall we say, lower wattage bulbs on the marquee, tried to engage their mind reading abilities to re-declare what I reeeeeaaaally meant.

Just read the posts without trying to read into them. Think about them for a second or two. You'll get the hang of big boy discussion.

Only gaslighting and browbeating left. Ok. (no rolleyes this time, just for you)

 

[Sideroxylon]

Only gaslighting and browbeating left. Ok. (no rolleyes this time, just for you)

Says someone constantly posturing but failed to engage discussion.

 

[Robin]

We've had this meta-debate already in the Invisible Dragon Thread.

Demanding a specific level of certainty only in one topic for no clearly defined reason is dishonest.

And who do you say did this???

Me?

If so then it is clearly you who is being dishonest.

 

[Robin]

Are you then claiming that "probably false" and "false" mean the same? That should spark some debate.

I am saying that "false" does not mean "false beyond any possible doubt" and that the fact that I answered the question saying "it is false" and the first paper on the subject said "probably not true" is quibbling.

As I said, I have also discussed this widely with both philosophers and scientists, I have no reason to change my answer.

This is the level of debate that we get from the "I hate philosophy" crowd.

 

[Robin]

Okay, so you're saying "X is false" is an identical statement to "X may be true but probably is not."

OK, I say that you are "quibbling" and "splitting hairs" that I said "false" and the paper I cited said "probably not true".

And somehow in your mind you have translated this to mean that "X is false" is an identical statement to "X may be true but probably is not".

I suppose I was expecting too much when I thought you would know what "quibbling" and "splitting hairs" mean.

I guess I was also expecting too much when I thought I might get rational responses from the "I hate philosophy" crowd.

 

[Wudang]

I am saying that "false" does not mean "false beyond any possible doubt" and that the fact that I answered the question saying "it is false" and the first paper on the subject said "probably not true" is quibbling.

As I said, I have also discussed this widely with both philosophers and scientists, I have no reason to change my answer.

This is the level of debate that we get from the "I hate philosophy" crowd.

Despite being a computer programmer I dislike binary logic. False and probably not true overlap but not completely. I like grey areas and thinking about them both personally as mental exercise and professionally.

And philosophy was one of my minors at uni and I have several books on the subject.

 

[Robin]

Despite being a computer programmer I dislike binary logic. False and probably not true overlap but not completely. I like grey areas and thinking about them both personally as mental exercise and professionally.

And philosophy was one of my minors at uni and I have several books on the subject.

I apologise for labelling your position "I hate philosophy".

 

[David Mo]

(...)and assume that we agree on the experiment thing, no matter how often you dishonestly try to call an experiment "observation" for no good reason.

I'll also try to restrain myself from talking to you ever again.

The agreement is only in his head and is a consequence of his ignorance.
The difference between observation and experiment is a commonplace in epistemology. You will find many articles about it, even on the internet if you search for "differences of observation experiments". The first one, for example. (My God, how "dishonest" people there is in these world! ).

In short, the main difference is that the experimenter manipulates reality into changing variables to see variations in effects. The observer is limited to seeing and recording.

Since the New Science (Galileo) the controlled experiment is one of the main resources for the formation of science as we understand it today. If you search for "controlled experiment" you will find many articles like this one.
In summary, the specific form of scientific experimentation involves the strict control and measurement of relevant variables with different phases of modifications. The contrast with a control group, for example. The different types of experiments were systematized by John Stuart Mill as inductive methods. Their purpose is legal explanation, a specific feature of science. Science does not limit itself to establishing regularities, as in the case of healers, but establishes laws that allow the application of causes and effects to other different events and predict consequences of the unknown. This is how science progresses and is what differentiates it from merely practical knowledge.

Controlled experimentation is a characteristic feature of the natural sciences, especially physics (astronomy is a particular exception, but it substitutes the experiment for the regularity of the repetition of astronomical phenomena). ) It is not always possible, but it is a model that is absent or irrelevant in other forms of knowledge.

I don't mean that these unscientific forms are not knowledge. That's what I'm saying in this thread. But they are not science, as you claim by extending the concept of science in an arbitrary way that leads to the confusion of things that are not the same. The healer or the shaman, the housewife who follows a recipe, the child who learns not to burn himself... These are all forms of knowledge, but to pretend that they are science is absurd.

You're right not to want to argue with me anymore. You've made a fool of yourself enough blaming for dishonesty what you can find in textbooks.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Quality post.

 

[SusanB-M1]

And yet, the testing of a plant for healing powers is nothing else but an experiment. (...)
It seems to me your concept of science changes by the second. So you can't go wrong, of course.

Either you tell us what you understand as science and experiment or you're playing with us.
Anyone who knows a bit about this knows that primitive people do not do controlled experimentation, which is what distinguishes modern physical science from medieval science and other types of knowledge.
So please tell us what you mean by science.

Fortunately for you (and all of us) those ancient humans who, during their evolution, did actually work out which plants to eat meant that the species survived and did not become extinct and thus wee are all here now!


P.S. Apologies - I have accidentally sent this as a pm I think.

 

[RedStapler]

The agreement is only in his head and is a consequence of his ignorance.
The difference between observation and experiment is a commonplace in epistemology. You will find many articles about it, even on the internet if you search for "differences of observation experiments". The first one, for example. (My God, how "dishonest" people there is in these world! ).

In short, the main difference is that the experimenter manipulates reality into changing variables to see variations in effects. The observer is limited to seeing and recording.

Since the New Science (Galileo) the controlled experiment is one of the main resources for the formation of science as we understand it today. If you search for "controlled experiment" you will find many articles like this one.
In summary, the specific form of scientific experimentation involves the strict control and measurement of relevant variables with different phases of modifications. The contrast with a control group, for example. The different types of experiments were systematized by John Stuart Mill as inductive methods. Their purpose is legal explanation, a specific feature of science. Science does not limit itself to establishing regularities, as in the case of healers, but establishes laws that allow the application of causes and effects to other different events and predict consequences of the unknown. This is how science progresses and is what differentiates it from merely practical knowledge.

Controlled experimentation is a characteristic feature of the natural sciences, especially physics (astronomy is a particular exception, but it substitutes the experiment for the regularity of the repetition of astronomical phenomena). ) It is not always possible, but it is a model that is absent or irrelevant in other forms of knowledge.

I don't mean that these unscientific forms are not knowledge. That's what I'm saying in this thread. But they are not science, as you claim by extending the concept of science in an arbitrary way that leads to the confusion of things that are not the same. The healer or the shaman, the housewife who follows a recipe, the child who learns not to burn himself... These are all forms of knowledge, but to pretend that they are science is absurd.

You're right not to want to argue with me anymore. You've made a fool of yourself enough blaming for dishonesty what you can find in textbooks.

I'm sorry. For you, wasting your time typing up this rant.
Yes, I am right not to want to argue with you anymore. I don't want you to suffer a heart attack over your inability to understand that testing a plant for its properties is of course an experiment, no matter at what point in time it occured. Your claim seems to be "It was not an experiment because the word was not defined by then" Not very convincing.
Normally I would say: Start a thread if you want but I fear it would be full of irrelevant rants like the above. Have a nice, calm day.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'm sorry. For you, wasting your time typing up this rant.
Yes, I am right not to want to argue with you anymore. I don't want you to suffer a heart attack over your inability to understand that testing a plant for its properties is of course an experiment, no matter at what point in time it occured.
Normally I would say: Start a thread if you want but I fear it would be full of irrelevant rants like the above. Have a nice, calm day.

So much salt.

 

[David Mo]

Fortunately for you (and all of us) those ancient humans who, during their evolution, did actually work out which plants to eat meant that the species survived and did not become extinct and thus wee are all here now!

This shows that there are forms of knowledge that are not science and that can be useful. This is my thesis, which is otherwise quite banal. Except for the positivists who consider science to be the only useful knowledge. For them, the chimpanzee who learns to crack a nut with a stone is a scientist like Einstein discovering the theory of relativity. As soon as there is something that is good, they make it their idol: Beneficial Science, be fore ever praised. And if science does something wrong, it's because of the Devil of Philosophy.
Well, everyone has the religion they deserve.

 

[xjx388]

Hmm...maybe this plant will help my headaches = hypothesis.

Eating the plant = experiment

Wow...I feel better = observation.

Let me see if it works for Bob = further experiment

Hey! Bob says he felt better. = reproduced results.

Etc.

It’s not Hard Science done in a lab and it’s not something that doctors should start touting as a cure for headaches. But it’s still a very basic form of, let’s call it: Folk or Soft Science. It can be the impetus to do Hard Science. Like it was with talking folk remedies and developing medicines out of the ones that panned out. Aspirin is an easy example.

Any idea that leads to experimentation and produces observations -that’s doing science whether it’s in a lab or sitting under a tree when an apple happens to fall and spark an idea.

ETA: I can see some philosophy as Soft Science...coming up with ideas and new ways of thinking about things. It has value in that way. But to say that philosophy can all by itself lead to knowledge about reality? No, I don’t see that.