And now with the opposing viewpoint...

[Charlie in Dayton]

...'nuff said...

 

[jjramsey]

Another repeat. See here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61453

 

[lifegazer]

There is not rebuttal to "the truth". At least, all rebuttals to the truth must be false (incorrect)...
by logical default.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

I hate being ToSeeked when I'm not even on the BABB...

 

[Hutch]

I hate being ToSeeked when I'm not even on the BABB...

Well, at least you got ToSeeked by another BABBler...


Edited to add: BABB=Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board

ToSeeked=The BABB has a poster, ToSeek, that is well-known for getting a post in 5 mintues before yours on the same topic. Hence when someone beats you to a topic on the BABB, you have been "ToSeeked"

Here endeth the lesson....

 

[Alkatran]

There is not rebuttal to "the truth". At least, all rebuttals to the truth must be false (incorrect)...
by logical default.

I think the point of the comic was that the old man wasn't actually giving out the truth, he was just saying that on his sign.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, at least you got ToSeeked by another BABBler...


Edited to add: BABB=Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board

ToSeeked=The BABB has a poster, ToSeek, that is well-known for getting a post in 5 mintues before yours on the same topic. Hence when someone beats you to a topic on the BABB, you have been "ToSeeked"

Here endeth the lesson....

Wasn't that already explained in an earlier thread?

 

[lifegazer]

I think the point of the comic was that the old man wasn't actually giving out the truth, he was just saying that on his sign.

The comic really doesn't have a point. It's impossible to negate the truth... and it's impossible to negate a lie unless one is in full possession of the truth. So, whether the "old man" is telling the truth or not, the scientist perched upon his rock has zero absolute truths ("the rebuttal") to tell us.

In fact, science has zero facts with regards 'reality', for even the existence of the world is in serious doubt.

 

[Alkatran]

The scientist might not have the truth, but he's closer to it. Science isn't about perfection.

 

[lifegazer]

The scientist might not have the truth, but he's closer to it. Science isn't about perfection.

Tell me, if the very existence of the world itself is in doubt, of what value are scientific facts to "the truth"?
You see, if the world/universe itself are in doubt, then the most a scientist can tell us is with regards the apparent order inherent within the dream of the world, so to speak. And "dreams" bear no relation to reality.
Science is very very limited in what it can say. It is neither a philosophy nor the absolute basis for one... and skeptics should take a serious note of this - if they are truly interested in "the truth".
My philosophy is that only philosophy itself has a hope of revealing the truth. Neither science nor religion can satisfy a mind that craves rational answers to the questions that we ask ourselves.

 

[Z]

Tell me, if the very existence of the world itself is in doubt, of what value are scientific facts to "the truth"?

Luckily, scientists aren't after 'the truth'.

You see, if the world/universe itself are in doubt, then the most a scientist can tell us is with regards the apparent order inherent within the dream of the world, so to speak. And "dreams" bear no relation to reality.

Except where that reality is the dream being considered. Luckily, again, science says no less.

Science is very very limited in what it can say. It is neither a philosophy nor the absolute basis for one... and skeptics should take a serious note of this - if they are truly interested in "the truth".

Yes - philosophy is uncertain and often absurd. And few philosophies make accurate predictions of future discoveries, or provide for the advancement of Mankind.

However, it should be noted that science is, in essence, a branch of philosophy. But that might require learning something, which Darren is determined not to do.

My philosophy is that only philosophy itself has a hope of revealing the truth. Neither science nor religion can satisfy a mind that craves rational answers to the questions that we ask ourselves.

Science goes a LOT further than philosophy, when it comes to answering questions that really matter.

OK, hypothetical situation: a 30 million ton chunk of rock and metal is hurtling toward your town. You're a multi-billionnaire, and are being asked to give funds to research a solution to prevent this rock from hitting your home and killing lots of folks. Which do you do: give it to scientists, so they can research methods of destroying or re-routing the asteroid before it does any damage, or give it to philosophers, who are going to do... um... what would they do, exactly?

Who finds cures and treatments for disease? Not philosophers.
Who finds ways to better irrigate crops so more food can be produced? Not philosophers.
Who developed the powerful tool you are sitting in front of right now, that allows you nearly instant access to all sorts of useful (and useless) information and disinformation? Not philosophers.

Compare a list of scientists and their contributions to the world, versus philosophers and their contributions to the world; then tell me, for certain, which has had a greater and more beneficial impact on our lives.

 

[c4ts]

The comic really doesn't have a point. It's impossible to negate the truth... and it's impossible to negate a lie unless one is in full possession of the truth. So, whether the "old man" is telling the truth or not, the scientist perched upon his rock has zero absolute truths ("the rebuttal") to tell us.

In fact, science has zero facts with regards 'reality', for even the existence of the world is in serious doubt.

If you call a circle a square and say it is Truth, the statement can still be negated, because it is false. Therefore I can rebut the "Truth."

 

[lifegazer]

Luckily, scientists aren't after 'the truth'.

That's a load of crap. Pardon my French. If my judgement here was not true, then we wouldn't have scientists such as Dawkins and Sagin using science as a means to refute the existence of God... and we wouldn't have millions of Westerners harking upon their every word as a justification for their own selfish beliefs. And that's the way it is. The fact is - whether you want to believe it or not - is that the majority (if not all) of atheists (and agnostics) in this world have placed their trust in science to negate/neutralise the existence of 'God'. And no manner of excuses will evaporate this fact - for if our scientists are doing it, what hope is there for the "common man" of average intelligence?

However, it should be noted that science is, in essence, a branch of philosophy. But that might require learning something, which Darren is determined not to do.

Science is the study of the order apparent within the perception of the world. And that's all it is.

OK, hypothetical situation: a 30 million ton chunk of rock and metal is hurtling toward your town. You're a multi-billionnaire, and are being asked to give funds to research a solution to prevent this rock from hitting your home and killing lots of folks. Which do you do: give it to scientists, so they can research methods of destroying or re-routing the asteroid before it does any damage, or give it to philosophers, who are going to do... um... what would they do, exactly?

God needs not money to avert/change a specific event.

Who finds cures and treatments for disease? Not philosophers.

Reason discovers everything, squire.

Who finds ways to better irrigate crops so more food can be produced? Not philosophers.

You're attempting to divide the ability to reason; yet this ability resides at the heart of EVERYTHING we say is true. For instance, this ability enables us to discern of the order inherent within the world and also enables us to discern that an absolute God is required to produce the PERCEPTION of such order.
I tell you this: it is the ability to reason which facilitates the practise of science. And you acknowledged this yourself when you said that philosophy was the construct of science.

Who developed the powerful tool you are sitting in front of right now, that allows you nearly instant access to all sorts of useful (and useless) information and disinformation? Not philosophers.

Incorrect. Reason has formulated all knowledge. The only argument left here, is which reason is absolute... as opposed to relative.

Compare a list of scientists and their contributions to the world, versus philosophers and their contributions to the world; then tell me, for certain, which has had a greater and more beneficial impact on our lives.

Scientists are [ignorant] philosophers who see the order inherent within the world - and hence can predict a future event due to that order - but they lack the intelligence, seemingly, to comprehend the essence of that order.

 

[Z]

That's a load of crap. Pardon my French. If my judgement here was not true, then we wouldn't have scientists such as Dawkins and Sagin using science as a means to refute the existence of God... and we wouldn't have millions of Westerners harking upon their every word as a justification for their own selfish beliefs. And that's the way it is. The fact is - whether you want to believe it or not - is that the majority (if not all) of atheists (and agnostics) in this world have placed their trust in science to negate/neutralise the existence of 'God'. And no manner of excuses will evaporate this fact - for if our scientists are doing it, what hope is there for the "common man" of average intelligence?

Science is the study of the order apparent within the perception of the world. And that's all it is.

God needs not money to avert/change a specific event.

Reason discovers everything, squire.

You're attempting to divide the ability to reason; yet this ability resides at the heart of EVERYTHING we say is true. For instance, this ability enables us to discern of the order inherent within the world and also enables us to discern that an absolute God is required to produce the PERCEPTION of such order.
I tell you this: it is the ability to reason which facilitates the practise of science. And you acknowledged this yourself when you said that philosophy was the construct of science.

Incorrect. Reason has formulated all knowledge. The only argument left here, is which reason is absolute... as opposed to relative.

Scientists are [ignorant] philosophers who see the order inherent within the world - and hence can predict a future event due to that order - but they lack the intelligence, seemingly, to comprehend the essence of that order.

Ah, but it was you, not I, who chose to divide 'science' from 'philosophy'. No one said anything about reason - in fact, reason is inherent in both science and philosophy, without a doubt.

Yet here, you are instead claiming that science is philosophy after all.

Which is it, Darren? You're showing your ignorance, again.

By answering my queries as you have, you have simply redefined 'scientist' to equal 'philosopher' - so I guess science is philosophy after all?

My, my, my... caught in your own illogical and unreasonable trap.

But I stand by what I said - science is not after 'the truth'. Science is about understanding the observable order in the Universe. 'The Truth' is a purely philosophical concept, an absolute which may or may not exist.

This is why science has 'theories', and why, whenever one sees someone refer to scientific 'facts', one knows one is dealing with a popularist, not a scientist.

I think you'll rarely find a respected scientific paper that lists 'facts' - as opposed to 'datums' or 'observations' and 'theories'.

But we're quickly running into another lifegazer dual-definition problem: is philosophy 'the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom' or is philosophy a more specific search for knowledge? It would be vitally useful, Darren, if you would tell us which version of 'philosophy' you are referring to. At one point, you seem to be referring to philosophy in the sense of "The study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think"; yet when I point out the difference between the contribution of philosophers (of this caste) and scientists, you invoke reason, which infers you have since switched your functional definition to 'love of knowledge', which is its original Greek definition.

You keep changing the rules, then wondering why people don't want to play your game. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[Dredred]

Zaayrdragon's question:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zaayrdragon
OK, hypothetical situation: a 30 million ton chunk of rock and metal is hurtling toward your town. You're a multi-billionnaire, and are being asked to give funds to research a solution to prevent this rock from hitting your home and killing lots of folks. Which do you do: give it to scientists, so they can research methods of destroying or re-routing the asteroid before it does any damage, or give it to philosophers, who are going to do... um... what would they do, exactly?

---

Lifegazer's answer:

God needs not money to avert/change a specific event.

So Lifegazer would just keep the money and pray?

 

[Beerina]

OK, hypothetical situation: a 30 million ton chunk of rock and metal is hurtling toward your town. You're a multi-billionnaire, and are being asked to give funds to research a solution to prevent this rock from hitting your home and killing lots of folks. Which do you do: give it to scientists, so they can research methods of destroying or re-routing the asteroid before it does any damage, or give it to philosophers, who are going to do... um... what would they do, exactly?

Fool! We won't know if God approved our prayers until after it hits the town! Duh.

And giving money to scientists is just tempting God's anger. He obviously sent the asteroid in the first place.

Tear down your lightning rods!