• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A beautiful argument for naturalism from Michael Shermer

I have to agree with Orpheus about Shermer. I like his books, though I don't have this latest one, but I also find that he emphasizes what I would consider less important at the expense of what is more central.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Science has answered many, many meaningful questions, like "how do I ensure I don't get food-poisoning?" and "what is a good way to cure disease?" and most importantly "how should we build a world-wide communication system where people can transfer information and ideas within milli-seconds to each other?"

Without science, we'd literally be in the dark ages.
Click to expand...

Ham thinks that the only meaningful questions are the ones whose answers have no practical value.
 
elaine said:
It is an awesome book. Dr. Shermer was in town last week for a reading and signing. Finally, I got to meet my hero. Can't wait to spend time with him at TAM.
Click to expand...

[rerail]

You should be pleased with TAM then. He is one of the most accessible speakers. He's spent time at the forum party two years in a row.

[/rerail]
 
KingMerv00 said:
[rerail]

You should be pleased with TAM then. He is one of the most accessible speakers. He's spent time at the forum party two years in a row.

[/rerail]
Click to expand...

I've heard the same story from others. Looking forward to it.
 
KingMerv00 said:
[rerail]

You should be pleased with TAM then. He is one of the most accessible speakers. He's spent time at the forum party two years in a row.

[/rerail]
Click to expand...
Yes and to derail back again. I spent some time with Shermer discussing Broke Back Mountain at last years party. :) It's true.

I'm a huge fan of Shermers.
 
I also owe him a special thanks. "Why People Believe Weird Things" started me down the skeptic route.

I think his greatest weakness though is that he is TOO nice. I've seen the Hovind/Shermer evolution debate and I have to say that he needed to be more agressive and more confident.

Still, he is very smart and very nice.
 
lifegazer,

Well, thanks for the detailed explanation.
Click to expand...
What sort of detailed explanation were you hoping for? If you had bothered to given any explanation for why you think that QM somehow contradicts what Paul said, I could have given a detailed explanation for why you are wrong. But you didn't. If you had bothered to explain how you made the jump from different observers seeing a different time on the clock, to the time you see being given by your mind, not by the clock, then I could have given a detailed explanation for why you are wrong. But again, you didn't.

If you are only going to make unsubstantiated claims, then don't expect the rebuttals to be anything more than people pointing out that those claims are not substantiated.

If you want to provide some sort of evidence to back up your claim, I will be happy to address it. But so far, all I have seen is a false assertion given without any justification.


Dr. Stupid
 
lifegazer said:
C'mon Paul, read some quantum physics.
Actually, you also raise an interesting point about 'a clock' with regards to Einstein and relativity.
... As you might know, there is no such thing as absolute time. So, let's imagine a very very large clock, akin to Big Ben, but with it's face to the vertical. Now, if you're stood right by that clock, you will observe a different rate of time than if you were to observe the Earth (clock) at a very high velocity, in orbit/space... akin to the space-twin paradox.
Now, the clock is fixed upon the Earth and - if real - it's rate of time should be static/absolute. But it is not. It can be shown that the time you see on the clock is dependent upon your own circumstances.
Now, the clock doesn't know or care about your circumstances.
So, clearly, the time you see is given to you by your mind... not the clock.

Comments?
Click to expand...


Oooooh Oooooooh Ooooooooh I've been waiting to see how you respond to this so please I'd like an answer.

In order to progress the debate here we are going to need to come to terms with what is and what isn't a valid piece of evidence. You have already stated that becouse we have no way to prove that our sensations corralate to any sort of reality, and so information gathered by our senses cannot be used as evidence of anything. Now I might be willing to make an exception just this once and allow you to use sensory data to show a contradiction in reality, becouse it seems your quantum argument depends on it. What I want to know is how you can prove to me what a contradiction is without using any sensory evidence. go ahead. I'm waiting. Also, how do you know in this specific example that "Now, the clock is fixed upon the Earth and - if real - it's rate of time should be static/absolute."? How do we know how a real clock behaves? Have you ever experianced a "real" clock and not one that existed only in your senses? If not than what evidence do you have to say how a clock should behave?

Again, please answer my questions.
1. prove to me what a contradiction is without using any sensory evidence.
2a. Have you ever experianced a "real" clock and not one that existed only in your senses?
2b. If not than what evidence do you have to say how a clock should behave?
 
Last edited:
Hyver said:
2a. Have you ever experianced a "real" clock and not one that existed only in your senses?
2b. If not than what evidence do you have to say how a clock should behave?
Click to expand...
Damn good question.
 
There is no proof that anything beyond what we sense is real.

There is PLENTY of evidence that it does in the form of what we SENSE. That's what evidence is. It's not a 100% thing, but I mean seriously, that's the most likely explanation. Further, assuming the objects to be real in themselves allows us to create mathematical models that seem to accurate predict how they behave. Part of this requires that the objects continue to exist even if they are not being experienced. One COULD probably create a model that allows for their sudden nonexistance and reexistance in the state we experience them in when next we experience them, but that would be very unweildy and overly complicated. Why convolute when it's easier this way and allows for the same level of accuracy? That's the purpose of science anyway. Further, what is to be posited that explains why our experiences have such consistancy? The unconcious mind? Sounds made up to me. Using your reasoning, there is no possibility for an unconcious mind to even exist. You are just supplanting one reality for another, a strange "unconcious mind" one that we aren't actually experiencing at all, because it's unconcious. Where is your evidence that this guiding and controlling thing exists? And further, this ordered experience we find, why can't we merely define THAT as the universe anyway? The fact is, it doesn't matter what the matter of our universe "truly is", all that matters is how it appears to behave. Maybe that's too leading for you, since I called it "matter", but it doesn't matter! If none of it is "real" and all I experience is the sight of something round which I identify as a bullet (assuming I have very good reflexes) and the experience of pain and then I stop experiencing alltogether, that's really all that's important.

All the evidence suggests a world outside our experience, even if we can't actually experience it, all evidence points to it being the cause of our experiences. This is not proof, but science isn't about proof, just an accurate model that makes sense.

By the way, explain why so many philosphers disagree with you. You keep saying "basic philosophy" is that the universe doesn't actually exist, but unfortunatly what I've seen shows that many people, graduates all, take the opposite view. Why is that exactly?
 
Hyver said:
... Again, please answer my questions.
Click to expand...
I'm going to answer your questions and discuss the clock-thingy in more detail, later, because I think I've latched onto something important.
I'm not going to do it here though. Look out for a new thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom