• 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

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...
See these poor lambs.
Just another form of religion.
 
lifegazer said:
Phil...
I would need to start my own thread to answer your questions.
A post answering your questions requires a higher billing than to be stuck amidst a thread that should be deleted by the mods for carrying zero weight, yet is dangerous in that it perpetuates - and seeks to expand the numbers of - the state of mind exhibited by Frank Zito himself.
Click to expand...

Your condescension toward Mr. Zito is unwarranted. He has done nothing but express thoughts with which you disagree. He has never offered you personal offense. I know, I've checked.

Steven
 
lifegazer said:
See these poor lambs.
Just another form of religion.
Click to expand...

That tears it.

Lifegazer, you are so far up your own a** you could disappear completely simply by standing on your toes. Your preposterous religion is simply a means of ego masturbation for you. For a while there I found you alternately amusing and sad. But now I find you pathetic and offensive and will be ignoring you. Have fun until your next public meltdown.

Steven
 
lifegazer said:
See these poor lambs.
Just another form of religion.
Click to expand...

Wow lifegazer. I need to read more of your posts to determine if this comment intentionally condescending.

Everyone has heroes, mine tend to be down-to-earth and brilliant.

And clearly, by any rational definition, science is not a religion.
 
"In this galaxy, there's a mathematical probability of three million Earth-type planets. And, in all the universe, three million million galaxies like this. And in all that – and perhaps more – only one of each of us... don't destroy the one named 'Kirk'."

- Dr. McCoy, Balance of Terror
 
Your condescension toward Mr. Zito is unwarranted. He has done nothing but express thoughts with which you disagree. He has never offered you personal offense. I know, I've checked.
Click to expand...

Condescension often is a substitute for rational argumentation. Rather than confront the argument, it's easier to attack/belittle/mock the arguer.

I wish I could meet Dr. Shermer; I really was impressed with this book. I have two more of his books yet to read: "Why People Believe Weird Things" and "How We Believe."

My Darwinism and skepticism have been fortified.
 
MrFrankZito said:
Condescension often is a substitute for rational argumentation. Rather than confront the argument, it's easier to attack/belittle/mock the arguer.

I wish I could meet Dr. Shermer; I really was impressed with this book. I have two more of his books yet to read: "Why People Believe Weird Things" and "How We Believe."

My Darwinism and skepticism have been fortified.
Click to expand...

A friend went with me to the signing. He had never heard of Micheal Shermer and was very impressed my him. My friend picked up a couple of his books.
 
MrFrankZito said:
Condescension often is a substitute for rational argumentation. Rather than confront the argument, it's easier to attack/belittle/mock the arguer.

I wish I could meet Dr. Shermer; I really was impressed with this book. I have two more of his books yet to read: "Why People Believe Weird Things" and "How We Believe."

My Darwinism and skepticism have been fortified.
Click to expand...
I haven't attacked you at all Frank. If you want to see what a personal attack looks like, read Foster Zygoat's previous post to me.

... Rather, I have attacked a specific state-of-mind. A state-of-mind borne of idolatry for scientists and their theories about a universe that none of us can even observe.

Mr Shermer needs to provide evidence for the universe beyond experience before he can use words to dupe you into believing "one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism I've ever read.".
As an influential (mind-changing) "hero" (see elaine's post) for many many people such as yourself, the guy has a responsibility to uphold the validity of his claims. He has not. And to be honest, he cannot. Just basic philosophy/logic Frank, shows that he cannot.
 
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...

I could make you so jealous with my stories from the Cruise, then.

I understand the hero part, for sure.
 
Oh lifegazer, lifegazer. Still making the same fundamental error of logic. It's been pointed out to you so often that I'm sure once more won't make a dent in your self-belief, but what the hell, I'll give it a go.

You state;
The objects experienced via ordered sensations are not in themselves real.
Click to expand...
This is not accurate. I agree that the sensations of objects are not in themselves real. I also agree that there is no direct evidence that the world external to sensation actually exists, and I think most others here would agree with those two statements. Your breakdown in logic comes at this point, because you fail to take into account the flip side of this coin, namely that there is no direct evidence that the world external to sensation does not exist.

Let me rephrase that in lifegazer language, there is zero evidence that sensed objects are not real beyond the sensation of them.

And there you have it.

There's no evidence either way.

This is the problem that philosophers have been struggling with for millenia. There's no way to determine which of these two mutually exclusive states is the actual truth.

Meanwhile we are faced with a sensed world that acts as if it exists beyond the sensation of it. It is highly ordered and hurts us if we don't respect it.

Scientists make observations of this order and use these observations to formulate rules about how it behaves, and predict how as yet unobserved things might behave.

If it weren't for people like this then your perceived world would be a cave, and you'd be spouting your philosophy to a handful of your fellow tribesmen over the remnants of a raw antelope.
 
wollery said:
Oh lifegazer, lifegazer. Still making the same fundamental error of logic. It's been pointed out to you so often that I'm sure once more won't make a dent in your self-belief, but what the hell, I'll give it a go.

You state;
This is not accurate. I agree that the sensations of objects are not in themselves real. I also agree that there is no direct evidence that the world external to sensation actually exists, and I think most others here would agree with those two statements. Your breakdown in logic comes at this point, because you fail to take into account the flip side of this coin, namely that there is no direct evidence that the world external to sensation does not exist.

Let me rephrase that in lifegazer language, there is zero evidence that sensed objects are not real beyond the sensation of them.

And there you have it.

There's no evidence either way.

This is the problem that philosophers have been struggling with for millenia. There's no way to determine which of these two mutually exclusive states is the actual truth.

Meanwhile we are faced with a sensed world that acts as if it exists beyond the sensation of it. It is highly ordered and hurts us if we don't respect it.

Scientists make observations of this order and use these observations to formulate rules about how it behaves, and predict how as yet unobserved things might behave.

If it weren't for people like this then your perceived world would be a cave, and you'd be spouting your philosophy to a handful of your fellow tribesmen over the remnants of a raw antelope.
Click to expand...

Do you think if we ignore him, he'll go away?
 
elaine said:
Do you think if we ignore him, he'll go away?
Click to expand...
No.


Although, speaking of going away.....

Lifegazer, you never did tell us how your great sabbatical experiment went. Did you manage to move any mountains?
 
lifegazer said:
MrFrankZito is so in awe of M. Shermer's "wonderful book", that he feels obliged to share a piece of his magnificent wisdom with the introduction "It's one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism I've ever read."

... Now, given that Shermer's statement is dependent upon the reality of a universe for which there is zero evidence or reason (truly, this is the case), only two comments come to mind:

1) How can "one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism I've ever read" follow from an assumption for which there is zero evidence or reason?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that lifegazer's point is invalid, unless he has knowledge of where all of MrFrankZito's previous information on naturalism came from...
 
lifegazer said:
A post answering your questions requires a higher billing than to be stuck amidst a thread that should be deleted by the mods for carrying zero weight, yet is dangerous in that it perpetuates - and seeks to expand the numbers of - the state of mind exhibited by Frank Zito himself.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that Frank's ~experience~ of the universe is less valid than yours?
 
lifegazer said:
There is no observation/study of a real universe. There is only observation/study of sensations that yield the experience of a universe.
In other words, science is actually the study of the order existing amongst the experience of a universe.

This fact should be taught to every budding scientist before they study any science. But it's not and it never has been... which is why scientists continue to propose theories about the universe upon assuming the actual reality of that universe - when there is zero evidence for it.
Click to expand...
By your own reasoning, there is no way to study the universe other than via our experience of it. This is what science does. There is no sane alternative.
 
lifegazer said:
The objects experienced via ordered sensations are not in themselves real.
Click to expand...
This is not in evidence. The objects experienced via ordered sensations are perceived and therefore can't absolutely be proven. But as it has been explained to you time and again, it makes no difference either way. Real or not real the consequences are the same. You will still ask to be released if locked in a room without food and water or die.

This is what we should acknowledge.
Click to expand...
No, there is no need to and we can't prove that it isn't real so we should not acknowledge such in the face of evidence to the contrary. That would be irrational.

...science is actually the study of the order existing amongst the experience of a universe.
Click to expand...
Assuming this is true few if any scientists would or should care. It would change nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom