(via Effect Measure)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Does anybody else think he ought to be wearing a filter mask? That stuff has got to be incredibly toxic.
(via Effect Measure)
The anniversary of the 9/11 attacks yesterday highlighted the health problems that many rescue, recovery, and cleanup workers and volunteers are facing. Articles in the New York Times, Newsday, and the New York Sun highlighted workers whoâve developed severe disease over the past six years and…
Two new studies highlight concerns about what some workers are inhaling on the job. An international study published in the Lancet (free registration required to view summary) found that occupational exposures account for a substantial portion of adultsâ new-onset asthma, and that nurses have a…
Bloggers have a lot to say about the Bush Administrationâs proposed new rules for the Endangered Species Act:
Andrew Wetzler at NRDCâs Switchboard points out that the Fish & Wildlife Service doesnât seem very interested in listening to the publicâs thoughts on the changes.
Jeff Dubbin at Oh My…
Funny movie, sure to tick off True BelieversTM of any faith.
Sweet Jebus.
Wow! I feel inspired!
Only one question: Does watching this video satisfy my sacred obligation to participate in mass on Sundays? I think it must.
Amen.
Argumentum ad rebus
It's funny because it's true!
Was that, point & laugh at the video, or point & laugh at the idiots who believe the superstitious crap? I laughed anyway. So did my daughter.
Funny and very true. #3 I think it does qualify consider yourself blessed with the holy waters of rational thinking.
"...talking to your ceiling..."
LOL That cracked me up!
"Believing in stuff and zany rituals that make no sense"
An excellent description of religion.
One of the most entertaining summaries of the "benefits" of religion ever. Too bad that crude little crayon drawing in the middle makes it NSFW.
Someone'll report them for the badly drawn pr0n.
The thread a while back regarding presidential e-mails seemed to neglect a little thing called the Presidential Records Act:
"But before he arrives at the White House, he will probably be forced to sign off. In addition to concerns about e-mail security, he faces the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence in the official record and ultimately up for public review, and the threat of subpoenas. A decision has not been made on whether he could become the first e-mailing president, but aides said that seemed doubtful."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/politics/16blackberry.html?_r=1&or…
"Funny movie, sure to tick off True Believers™ of any faith." - Nerd, #1
If the Saudis have their way, such intolerance will be illegal.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/11/mideast/nations.php
Brilliant!
The video talked about brainwashed children. All religious people, including "moderate" pro-science Christians, lie to their children about Jebus or other insane nonsense. This is the worst kind of child abuse and there's nothing moderate about it. All religious people mentally abuse their children and they all deserve to be ridiculed, laughed at, and treated with contempt.
If you want something really stupid, check out this. A "top psychiatrist" has said that liberals are clinically mad.
It seems to be a case of "I know you are, but what am I"? though.
@ Paul Burnett, #13:
Welcome to Saudi America?
Yeah, it's like apartheid South Africa holding a conference on racial harmony, for Saudi Arabia to host a conference on religious tolerance. It's difficult to think of more intolerant people on the Earth today. Saudi Arabia has been consistently rated as one of the most repressive regimes on Earth. Why do we have to listen to them? Arrgghh...it gives me a headache. And to think our leaders will probably go along with this?
It's a somewhat funny video, yeah, but it does seem to paint with a ridiculously broad brush. There are a number of religions that:
-- aren't based on adherence to sacred texts (Wicca, most other forms of Neo-Paganism),
-- don't proselytize (most subsets of Hinduism, Shinto, most Neo-Pagan branches [and none proselytize seriously - ref. Church of the SubGenius or Discordians]),
-- don't insist on the untruth of other religions (again, all Neo-Pagans, most Hindus, Unitarian Universalists),
-- don't advocate violence (Buddhists do believe other religions are essentially worshipping illusions, but they certainly don't advocate hurting anyone [except maybe themselves] to put their point across),
-- don't insist on any literal truth to their own beliefs (most Neo-Pagans, many Buddhists, some Hindus, Unitarian Universalists, etc.).
In other words, for every point against religion humorously put forward by the video, there are religions that don't actually espouse those actions or beliefs, and there are some that don't fit *any* of the attributes ascribed to religion. Most of the points that are made by the video apply to dogmatism, a rigid belief in the validity of one's own point of view. The problem with people attaching all of those negative traits to a supernatural belief system is that it ignores the fact that any belief system is vulnerable to becoming rigid and dogmatic. Soviet communism, and especially Maoist Chinese communism certainly demonstrate that possibility. Funny, certainly, but it misses the point by a country mile.
Can I have a custom-made religion that offers silly clothes, but with none of that killing and war stuff?
Richard
Is your last name Buzzkill?
Were you the kid at the party who said "Maybe we shouldn't be here while Johnathon's parents are out of town."?
After your prom, in the hotel room, did you say something like "But if you remove that lovely dress, it could get wrinkled."?
link in #16 points to WorldNetDaily. That particular story on the site is remarkably level-headed compared to most of their idiotic, paranoid woo!
The thought police have struck. I'm just getting a message that says "We're sorry. This video is no longer available"
Anyone have it saved somewhere else?
Strangely enough, while I'm looking at this thread in one window, I'm looking at a thread discussing these in another.
http://www.mmawarehouse.com/Jesus-Didn-t-Tap-s/6216.htm
Obviously for those who train in the Beat The Crap Out Of People for Jesus dojo.
I feel that my Jedi faith is threatened.
I think that covers it pretty well.
Other side effects include sexual dysfunction and rampant misogyny.
Dan DeLeon
Jesus didn't tap.
No, but he did a wicked sand dance(History of the World part 1, anyone?).
It was pretty funny I guess, although I had a bit of the problem with the "dressing up in funny clothes" line. Some of the garments being shown have deep cultural roots aside from religious ones, and I've seen enough Americans (I would bet this goes on everywhere, but I couldn't say) in my time mock the traditional dress of foreign peoples to be sick of it. Of course, feel free to tell me if you think I'm being silly; what with Halloween costumes based on stereotypes and "exoticism" still fresh in my mind I might be overly sensitive to it right now.
Dan DeLeon, I've never really understood all the jesus stuff in mma and powerlifting too. Even if god was real, would he really care if you beat people up or lift weights?
Richard #18
Some of your points are valid. Some Hindus don't proselytize and Buddhists don't go on Jihad. But some of the other stuff you wrote is ludicrous. For instance, Church of the SubGenius is a parody, not to be confused with a real church ("Eternal Salvation or TRIPLE Your Money Back!").
Be that as it may, the two largest belief systems, Christianity and Islam, fit into the video's description of religion.
Awesome!!!
#15 Hear, hear!!
I just wonder why the Pastafarians do not protest against their sacred beliefs being lumped together with these other, clearly false religions ...
#23
If you think about it, secular humanists (or at least me) see religion as just the first in many irrational belief systems that need to be swept aside. There are plenty of behaviors ingrained in many societies that are not based on religion but are equally absurd. We need to apply rational thought to all human activities - its just that religion is the most absurd one out there. When its gone there will be others to tackle.
Re: my post #22
Nevermind. Now it's working. The Illuminati were just messing with me. Thank goodness I'm wearing my tinfoil hat.
While there are many religions which don't suffer from all the problems, they all suffer from at least some of them. As for the religions which say they're not dogmatic, and they accept other religions as 'valid paths to truth' -- see what they say about those religions which don/t think all religions are fundamentally the same.
I once responded to a Bahai who told me that, for those (like her) with an enlightened view of God, it was narrow and unspiritual to consider anyone else's beliefs to be wrong by asking if that meant that I should consider people who thought there was only one path to be WRONG? She refused to answer, acting as if I had come up with some subtle and hitherto unsuspected point which had nothing to do with the issue.
She then told the story of the blind men and the elephant -- which is supposed to show how everyone can be a little right and a little wrong. Oh? I pointed out that the real moral of the story was that everybody in it was wrong but the storyteller. In the land of blind people -- how come the damn person telling the story KNOWS it's an elephant?
She didn't like that either. You're not supposed to get that out of the story. You're supposed to smugly identify with the storyteller, and sweep all the flat-out contradictions between religions into the category marked "partly true."
David Weiner #34 wrote:
I agree -- but it's not just that religion is the most extreme form of irrationality. It's that, in our culture, religion is the basic, approved form of irrationality, the one that encourages people to go out and fudge facts, ignore evidence, skewer results, confirm biases, and play with fallacies as if this is a good thing.
Religion is the bad role model which you're not supposed to criticize. Somehow, the intellectual dishonesty of 'believing that what you want to be true IS true" -- which is normally frowned on -- is suddenly enshrined as the touchstone of moral character. Religions and spiritualities tell people that the attitude of faith is a virtuous one. After that's entrenched, it's hard to separate when you should be rational, and when you shouldn't.
When you apply skepticism, critical thinking, and scientific rigor to paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, you see every single dodge of the seasoned religious apologist coming out of the people who defend them. No, maybe they CAN'T prove that homeopathy works -- but can you prove love exists? Maybe it does contradict all the known laws of physics and chemistry -- but don't we all need to believe that there are mysteries greater than what we can know? "Let me tell you what happened to me, because when it happens to you that is the only sure way of knowing that you're right..."
"I can't stress strongly enough how much this reliance on personal testimony and this mandate that we take personal testimony at face value contributes to the irrationalism that abounds today. It comes right out of popular therapies, and popular therapies took it straight from the religious tradition of testifying and the conflation of feelings about god's immanence with facts about his existence." (Wendy Kaminer)
> Posted by: co | November 16, 2008 1:56 PM
link in #16 points to WorldNetDaily. That particular story on the site is remarkably level-headed compared to most of their idiotic, paranoid woo!<
I confess that I have never read any of that page before and doubt I will ever read any more of it but if that right wing B.S. constitutes level headed then I have no idea what level headed means.
That was a nice Monday morning lol
Richard #18
What are you suggesting? That the video should have included every specific criticism of every religion, rather than generalising? That may have made it go for a lot longer and be a lot less funny don't you think?
Do you honestly believe the video was actually trying to convert religious people away from religion? Or do you think it was just trying to be funny? And if it's the latter, is it necessary to be 100% accurate with no generalisations? Do you think many people didn't realise it was making generalisations and assumed that because a YouTube video says so, that all religions really are exactly as described?
How offensive!!!
I didn't see any reference to the Mormons.
#38 - the key is "for them..." - the WorldNutDaily is an extremist site, and although I have not read the story linked to, it would seem that it is more level-headed than much of their other stuff. Search here and at many other Scienceblogs sites (Dispatches comes immediately to mind, but others as well) for a breakdown (and takedown) of their brand of lunacy.
It's satire, that's the point. It wouldn't be funny if they started talking about all the exclusions.
Posted by: Ka @ 33 "I just wonder why the Pastafarians do not protest against their sacred beliefs being lumped together with these other, clearly false religions ..."
Hey, we Pastafarians have as much right to believe silly things, dress up in silly clothes and be as false as members of any other religion! That's the point!
Dave Allen was ahead of his time re religion. Usually a few good laughs per routine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhIaOFbrEtI&NR=1
They are the one true religion, they don't need to worry about descending to pettiness over immature taunts.
I am shocked! I thought truth-in-advertising was a federal felony. Why aren't these people locked away?
(Snark.)
#41 You missed the boys in suits at the door.
This reminds me I need to knit his noodly appendage to go on top of this year's xmas tree.
Love the guy in the FSM costume. I wants one.
I don't know if religion is the most absurd of irrational human activities; it's more that it's the most accepted of irrational human activities, and it's given a free pass because of how institutionalised it is.
One of the complicating factors is that, for many people, it's as much a cultural thing as a religious thing - you in the US have to deal with the argument that you're in a christian nation and that your country was built on faith; that it's somehow unAmerican to not be a believer.
It's rubbish, of course, but it's a clever ploy by those who realise things like patriotism and cultural identity are important to people.
And it's similar for ethnic groups as well. I know a guy who's a Greek Orthodox, but only because he's Greek and the Greek religion is Greek Orthodox, not because he genuinely believes any of it. If all the Greeks worldwide had a referendum and decided, as a race, to go back to Olympian Polytheism, he'd be first in line to help build a temple to Zeus. But until they do he'll happily tell people he's a Greek Orthodox.
It's always going to be much more difficult to convince people to give up their irrational religion when it's so strongly linked to their ethnic/cultural identity.
Richard @18: "...for every point against religion humorously put forward by the video, there are religions that don't actually espouse those actions or beliefs, and there are some that don't fit *any* of the attributes ascribed to religion."
Well, duh. That never prevented people from steaming straight towards precisely those "actions or beliefs" on the notion, however mistaken, that their religion encourages them, has it?
You've gotta understand: religion is a frame of mind that frames no mind.
"Funny movie, sure to tick off True BelieversTM of any faith."
I'm not so sure. Somehow, I think that the True Believers of Scientism won't get ticked off because they don't even know they're True Believers...
@funda62 #48
I thought they were 7th Day Adventists. But considering the Mormons went went door to door in California campaigning for Proposition 8, maybe you're right.
eric at #51, you'd wound me to the quick, sir, had you been wielding a weapon more powerful than that joke shop rubber chicken you're attempting to whip about menacingly. As flawed as it is, scientism (note lower case) is the least offensive alternative to FCCtardity, such as you profess with such exemplary charm. Scientism has the added advantage of existing only in the fever dreams of the god-addled but otherwise empty braincases of the drive-by trolls who keep shooting blanks around these parts.
"Scientism has the added advantage of existing only in the fever dreams of the god-addled but otherwise empty braincases of the drive-by trolls who keep shooting blanks around these parts."
Thank you, sir, for concisely proving my point.
I'm a fairly religious man and I thought that was hilarious.
Eric, #51, wrote:
Here's a hint, Eric - when it can be supported with facts and evidence then it's not 'faith'. Faith is what you have when you believe without evidence for and in spite of evidence against.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
Rāmen!
Oh, that's a testable hypothesis. Test it, get the results through peer-review and publication, and then we can talk. =8-)
Thank you, sir, for concisely proving my point.
And in your own particular idiom, there is no possible response that would have proved anything to you other than your reality-denying point, which is why I must thank you for presenting such a plus-sized target for everybody to point and laugh at.
"Scientism." It sounds so scientesque, a believer using such a word to mock unbelievers by calling them believers. The irony always escapes them, like air from a whoopie cushion.
baryogenesis@45: Thank you for the Dave Allen spot! I never saw that particular monologue before, and I'd forgotten how brilliantly funny he was.
See, the problem with these parodies is that it really misses the meaning and depth that the FSM gives to my life, and my place in the universe.
"Here's a hint, Eric - when it can be supported with facts and evidence then it's not 'faith'. Faith is what you have when you believe without evidence for and in spite of evidence against."
First, you're simply wrong about the meaning of 'faith.'
Second, notice that your incorrect conception of 'faith' is confused. It's quite often the case that all the available evidence supports P, yet the belief that P isn't justified.
Third, scientism has nothing to do with science qua science, but with the presumption that science is the only way of knowing.
As a believer in science, I can point to the computer, the VOIP telephone, the electricity running the computer, the lighting and air conditioning in the office, and the office itself as all proofs of concept. What do religious nutters have?
Can you demonstrate another way of knowing that works better than science?
"And in your own particular idiom, there is no possible response that would have proved anything to you other than your reality-denying point, which is why I must thank you for presenting such a plus-sized target for everybody to point and laugh at."
To attack what you foolishly call my 'reality-denying' point would require you to deny the reality of Peter Atkins. Talk about irony!
eric-the-exceptionally-stupid-troll@51,
Self-defeating nonsense from you there, eric. Part of the definition of the "True Believer" is that they are self-professed: they would be insulted if you denied they are True Believers, holding fast to their faith and certain no conceivable event could, would or should shake that faith. This applies whether they are Christians, Muslims, Mormons or what have you. For those valuing science, however, it is very easy to specify events which would leave their confidence in the scientific method shattered. Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, for example, would more than suffice.
science is the only way of knowing
Who said science is a way of knowing? To paraphrase a very smart person, science, as flawed as it is, is only a superior way to avoid fooling ourselves.
I am shocked and disgusted by your blatant rudeness and disrespect towards Christian Science. I realize that our faith and devout religious belief is in the minority in a vast sea of people who are heathens and gentiles, but I am saddened to see one of those gentiles mocking that faith and that belief. I suppose you must be one of those Atheists, led astray by your lack of true faith. I do hope that you will someday take the time to stop off at a Christian Science Reading Room, and perhaps you will be able to open your mind and return to God.
eric-the-exceptionally-stupid-troll@51,
More atheist niceness. It never stops.
To attack what you foolishly call my 'reality-denying' point would require you to deny the reality of Peter Atkins
My, what a convoluted parody of reason, bordering on the delusional. This is too messed up to be a poe.
Nick Gotts: "eric-the-exceptionally-stupid-troll@51...
For those valuing science, however, it is very easy to specify events which would leave their confidence in the scientific method shattered. Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, for example, would more than suffice."
You must be joking. Fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata wouldn't in any way suffice to 'shatter' the confidence of anyone in the scientific method -- unless he happened to be 'exceptionally stupid,' as you put it. Rather, it would only require us to rethink our current conception of evolution. That was actually funny, though -- you've just demonstrated how poorly you understand not only logic, but science itself!
Surely even you, with your sophisticated and philosophical disputation, realize that this is a complete non sequitur, and is thus an utterly fallacious argument.
Eric, all you have to do is show a better way of knowing than the scientific method.
Come on, what works better than the process of observation, testing, hypothesis, further testing, even more testing, more observation, more evidence gathering, falsification, more testing, revision of ideas, further testing...
eric,
You really are a halfwit. Such a finding could only indicate that outside interference by some enormously powerful outside industry had occurred: an agency capable of time travel, of predicting the course of evolution in complete detail, or some other similar feat. Without knowing whether and under what circumstances such an agency was still interfering, there could of course be no confidence in any scientific experiment or observation.
"My, what a convoluted parody of reason, bordering on the delusional."
Ah, so Peter Atkins hasn't said that every legitimate question is a scientific question, he didn't write the essay, "The Limitless Power of Science," he hasn't said that "There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence," and so on. Now that I've factually corrected you, you'll no doubt continue with the insults, 'denying reality' as only you can...
The complete lack of evidence is a sure sign the conspiracy is working.
"outside industry" -> "agency @73
No-one is arguing that the scientific method has limitless power, one of the advantages of the method is that it has limitations. What we are asking you is to show another way of obtaining knowledge that works better than the scientific method.
"You really are a halfwit. Such a finding could only indicate that outside interference by some enormously powerful outside industry had occurred: an agency capable of time travel, of predicting the course of evolution in complete detail, or some other similar feat. Without knowing whether and under what circumstances such an agency was still interfering, there could of course be no confidence in any scientific experiment or observation."
Absolute nonsense. No one would say that finding rabbit fossils in Precambrian geologic strata does away with the entire discipline of science. You know as well as I do that it would only require us to rethink -- scientifically -- everything we've concluded about evolution. You're flailing wildly here, and it shows.
Go argue with Peter Atkins. Scientism is not a belief, nor a faith, it's merely a slur used to mischaracterize something you've demonstrated that you don't understand.
Please don't let me interrupt your wanking. Carry on.
Yet even with these facts, your statements remain a complete non sequitur, and are still an utterly fallacious argument.
And you are going to great lengths to avoid showing any means of obtaining knowledge superior to the scientific method. Come on eric, bring something to the table.
"Yet even with these facts, your statements remain a complete non sequitur, and are still an utterly fallacious argument."
Showing that there is at least one advocate of scientism (whether he calls it that or not) is not evidence that the proposition, "Scientism has the added advantage of existing only in the fever dreams of the god-addled but otherwise empty braincases of the drive-by trolls who keep shooting blanks around these parts" is false?
Eric,
How is my definition of 'faith' incorrect? Are you implying that your definition of faith must be the only way of defining it?
How very limited of you.
And why do you assume that Peter Atkins speaks for all of us?
Yes. As you yourself note, he does not call it "scientism", and you have not demonstrated anything at all towards it being scientism, hence, your argument is a fallacy.
Heck, you have not even defined "scientism". You certainly have not demonstrated that your example meets that definition. Thus, Ken Cope is, so far, correct.
QED.
eric, the half a bee, who can both be and not-be, ignored the first part of my response: As flawed as it is, scientism (note lower case) is the least offensive alternative to FCCtardity. For somebody who has not honestly addressed any response to you, you are prematurely declaring victory.
Even if Peter Atkins (who at that point was being discussed only by the voices in eric's head) was an advocate of a program accurately described as scientism, such a program would be infinitely more productive to any faith-based or so-called "alternative ways of knowing" which are accurately described only as knowing in the not-mode.
eric@78,
What I wrote was that it would "leave their confidence in the scientific method shattered", which of course it would. Clearly you have no idea how science works: fields established for 150 years simply do not have their most fundamental observational findings - such as that the history of life is not recurrent - overturned. Confidence in the scientific method could not rationally be maintained if it had led to such a basic error. Unless and until we understood the nature of the agency that had fooled us, we could not possibly have confidence that similar collapses were not awaiting us in other fields. It is not a logical necessity that reality should be such that the scientific method works. That it is, is itself simply a high-level hypothesis, which such a discovery would indicate to be false.
You can define the word "scientism" a lot of different ways. If it means that you believe that it is scientifically possible to determine if Mozart is a 'better composer' than Beethoven by looking through microscopes and taking measurements of atoms, then sure, 'scientism' is silly. But of course it's usually used to attack anyone who has taken some piece of favored pseudoscience, paranormal belief, or supernatural dogma and ground it through a process which allows it to be falsified or discarded.
I will agree, though, that it is a little tricky to figure out what would, could, or should shake confidence in science as such -- meaning not the conclusions, but the method. Science is a series of techniques developed over time which are designed to weed out human error and bias. It's characterized by rigorous checks, cross-checks, and balances. The trust then isn't put into any particular scientists, group of scientists, or conclusion they make. It's not put in the "self." What's taken on trust is a basic belief that our personal or ideological prejudices can easily mislead us, and so we need a larger system where mistakes can be caught if we care about catching them.
What would be needed to shake my confidence in the method of science, then, is a deep and untestable conviction that there is a human being somewhere who CAN NOT be wrong. No. Not possible. And, since I am the one deciding who this person is, it ultimately looks like it's going to turn out to be me.
Therefore, to answer the question, if I were to become convinced that I was infallible -- and no longer needed to worry about being biased, because my hunches are surefire guides to truth, then I guess I would have to lose my faith in the scientific method. I'm not sure what could or would or should convince me I'm infallible, but I guess that's the test. That would break my scientistic faith.
I don't anticipate it, but I'll watch out for it.
"Eric, all you have to do is show a better way of knowing than the scientific method."
This is poorly formulated. It's not that there's a superior way of answering properly scientific questions than science, but that not all questions are scientific questions, and some of these can be answered. Philosophy, logic and mathematics provide sundry examples of such questions.
"And why do you assume that Peter Atkins speaks for all of us?"
I don't; I merely used Atkins as a counterexample to the claim that scientism has no advocates.
"Clearly you have no idea how science works: fields established for 150 years simply do not have their most fundamental observational findings - such as that the history of life is not recurrent - overturned. Confidence in the scientific method could not rationally be maintained if it had led to such a basic error."
Right, which is why Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein, inter alia, destroyed science. No, it is quite obviously you who have no idea whatsoever of how science works -- or has worked.
Yes, those questions are outside the scope of science. But you'll get no argument from anyone here. Science deals in observed reality.
So what's the problem here?
Right, which is why Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein, inter alia, destroyed science.
Target rich trollery, that.
Einstein didn't destroy science, he showed why Galileo and Newton appeared to have had it right, at certain scales, and made accurate predictions about the results to expect from experiments that were beyond the state of the art of then-current instrumentation, and was shown to be correct.
eric doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed.
Eric #88 wrote:
Quite true. But the issue which divides us on religion is where the factual claims it makes on supernatural phenomena belong. Take God, for instance.
Here's Dawkins' formulation of the God hypothesis:
There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it.
Okay. Now, if you were placing it into a broad category with similar types of claims, which category would you place it in:
Category #1:
The Big Bang occurred.
Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.
A person can leave their body and go into another room.
Cats have 8 legs.
Humans feel emotions.
Category #2:
1 + 1 = 2
if a > b, and b > c, then a > c
It is stipulated that a bachelor is an unmarried man.
Something cannot be a and not-a, at the same time, and in the same way.
Category #3:
You have to have hope.
Shakespeare was the greatest writer ever.
Yippeee!
People who harm animals are wrong.
I need a hug.
The first category is empirical claims; the second category is logical formulations; the third category consists of feelings, opinions, and values.
Where would you place God? What sort of statement is it? What sort of thing is it supposed to be?
Is it really a non-scientific assertion like "I need a hug?"
eric, you moron, none of those you mentioned overturned "fundamental observational findings". Galileo overturned assumptions made in the absence of the new observational tool he had - the telescope, which is a very different thing. In the case of fossil Precambrian rabbits, no such new tool would be required, and 150 years of extensive and systematic investigation would be shown to have led to a false observational finding. Point me to anything remotely similar happening in science. Just burbling a few names won't cut it.
I have been reading with great amusement eric's comments. He offers no proof of concept or rational explanation and support of anything he states while mocking with great failure all who do.
The emperor troll is named eric and he has no clothes... let alone a definition of faith or science that he can articulate.
Ericism disproves itself.
"As you yourself note, he does not call it "scientism"
Yes, because it's the concept, not the word we attach to it, that counts. Scientism is generally understood as comprising a set of beliefs *about* science, e.g. all questions are scientific questions, scientific explanations trump all other explanations, any question that isn't a scientific question is a pseudo-question, etc. Atkins clearly subscribes to these sorts of beliefs about science, so it's quite reasonable to adduce him as a counterexample to the claim that scientism has no advocates. Now, if you're asking for a precise set of necessary and sufficient conditions for scientism, then you're just playing around, since it's most likely the case that no worldview (concept?) can be described in this way (think Wittgenstein on the term 'game').
Scientism is generally understood as comprising a set of beliefs *about* science, e.g. all questions are scientific questions, scientific explanations trump all other explanations, any question that isn't a scientific question is a pseudo-question, etc. Atkins clearly subscribes to these sorts of beliefs about science - eric
Are you claiming Atkins thinks that whether or not there are infinitely many primes, or whether a 19-sided regular polygon can be constructed with ruler and compass alone, are scientific questions? If so, I'd like some evidence. If not, what are you claiming. Do you actually know?
Ah, Wittgenstein. It's too deep for me in here.
I still maintain that scientism is no more than a slur and mischaracterization of science, which, even if it did accurately describe the entire enterprise of science as practiced, would still be of more utility and predictive power than any non-scientific alternative, the specifics of which eric still, conveniently, fails to propose.
Actually, if you define "science" broadly enough, then all questions are science questions.
This is only fair, since, if you define religion broadly enough, then all questions are now religious questions.
And, I do not know, but can make a pretty shrewd guess, that philosophers can extend their concept of what philosophy includes, in order to conclude that all questions are really questions about philosophical matters. Philosophers are tricky like that.
Moral: check all the definitions first. Then get on the same page, or burn forever in Semantic Debate Hell.
Come to that, do you think Atkins believes that whether a particular business practice is legal in Scotland is a scientific question? That whether he will trip over at some time in the next month is a scientific question? That whether he should be paid royalties on his books is a scientific question? You've chosen Atkins as an example, so presumably you know his opinion on these matters.
Nick,
Eric's playing a game of pseudo-intellectual hackey-sack in an attempt to reinforce the belief his philosophical debate skills are superior to the posters here.
Basically, what he's saying is that science can't answer non-scientific questions; believing it can is, essentially, a religion - which he calls 'scientism'. And it he's asking us to explain why the religion of scientism should be any more valid than christianity if it seeks to answer questions outside its purview.
Exactly. It seems like eric tries to put down science in the same way a creationist puts down evolution. It's not about putting his own case forward, it's about destroying the "other side" in order to make them seem the irrational ones.
The problem eric faces is that we do already know the limitations of science and where it can and cannot apply. What he's saying isn't anything relevatory or even insightful, it's just a way he can feel better about those who dismiss his god.
*phweet!!!*
Assertion not based on evidence.
I'm sorry, you need to work harder than that to demonstrate your argument.
Let's see, what are you saying "scientism" is?
"all questions are scientific questions" - Obviously arguable and probably false. Where does Atkins says precisely this?
"scientific explanations trump all other explanations" - well, empirically demonstrable explanations about empirical reality obviously trump explanations not empirically demonstrable. I think it could be argued that the negation of the statement leads to a reducto ad absurdum. Is it your assertion that there can exist a non-scientific explanation that is better than a scientific one when it is about empirical reality?
"any question that isn't a scientific question is a pseudo-question" - I am not sure what this even means, or if it even has meaning. Define "pseudo-question".
Wowbagger,
Yes, I'm aware that eric is basically a dishonest little shit, seeking to make false equivalences between religion and science.
he's asking us to explain why the religion of scientism should be any more valid than christianity if it seeks to answer questions outside its purview
In short, he's making us play guessing games as to what kind of argument a competent and honest person would make, without actually making any of those arguments himself, which is the debate stance of a punk. If it's philosophy or logic he thinks he's practicing, he should be de-triple-barred.
I'm not 'putting down' science in any way. In fact, I distinguished science from scientism, and claimed that the latter comprises beliefs about science.
Sastra (#87):
Actually, if you want to determine via scientific methods whether Mozart was a "better composer" than Beethoven, all you have to do is measure the relative concentrations of Dust in the vicinity of their original scores.
The contention here is that sciencism doesn't exist, you are only pointing out the obvious and factors that the vast majority can and do take into account. Why go on about sciencism when there's pretty much nobody who advocates it?
Oh please let me get in on the troll beating....eric, do you believe in objective truth?
eric,
I'm waiting for answers to 94, 97 and 101.
Definitions of 'scientism' from my files:
Scientism is the brash and overreaching doctrine that says that everything worth saying or expressing can be said or expressed in a scientific idiom. (O. Flanagan)
Scientism is "the fundamental belief that science can do no wrong and will ultimately answer any question worth answering while in the process saving humankind as a bonus." (Massimo Pigliucci)
"(S)cientism, the view that all truths are ultimately scientific." (Orr)
Scientism: the claim that what science cannot tell us humankind cannot know.(unknown)
Scientism has been defined as "the belief that science, especially natural science, is much the most valuable part of human learning--much the most valuable part because it is much the most authoritative, or serious, or beneficial" (Sorell, 1991, p. 1).
"Scientism is, rather, the belief that science is the only valuable part of human learning, that knowledge comes only through the methods of investigation available to science, that science by itself gives us reliable answers to questions about morality and epistemology, that science enables us to solve all serious human problems, and that science will give us a comprehensive and unified understanding of the meaning of the universe." (Steve Schaferman)
Narrow Scientism: science is the basic, sole trusted source of truth.
Broad Scientism: the sciences are to be our guide, not our sole trusted source of evidence (nor even a basic one). Why are they to be our guide? Because they present the only methods that work. This is not a conclusion arrived at by first philosophy. It is observed, making it an a posteriori discovery. (Richard Carrier)
Given most of these definitions, I reject scientism. I've read Atkins (though it's been a while), and I bet he'd reject it too. Unless, as I suggested before, he's using some very broad definition of 'science'
I'm not 'putting down' science in any way.
eric clearly wouldn't recognize science if it walked up and bit him in the ass.
In fact, I distinguished science from scientism, and claimed that the latter comprises beliefs about science.
I claimed that scientism comprises mischaracterizations of scientists and science.
"There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with *every aspect* of existence."
"Science is the **sole route** to true, complete, and perfect knowledge"
"I do not consider that there is any corner of the **real universe or the mental universe** that is shielded from [science's] glare"
"reductionist science is *omnicompetent*"
"Science can account **for everything**...science is **omnipotent**..."
Sounds like scientism to me...
eric,
I'm waiting for answers to 94, 97 and 101.
Looks like quote-mining to me. What are you even talking about?
So you are on a crusade to argue against Peter Atkins. For what purpose? What is the point of your posts eric?
Good night all. I expect you to have your answers to my questions in by tomorrow morning, eric. Neatly typed, please, and show your working - no quote-mining!
Nick, #97 and #101 are answered by the quote, "Science can account for everything." The examples you bring up surely fall within the range of 'everything.' It's hard to claim that a statement like this was taken out of context. If you're interested in the context, though, here's Atkins in a debate claiming that science can account for everything, that science is 'omnipotent,' and asking what it cannot account for.
http://christianskepticism.blogspot.com/2008/09/peter-atkins-science-ca…
Your question at #94 conflates the distinction between an observation as such and the interpretation of an observation. It also evinces a misunderstanding of Galileo; it is conceded today that Galileo's arguments *did not* adequately support his conclusions, e.g. his observations of Jupiter's moons could have been accounted for by adding further epicycles to the then dominant Ptolemaic geocentric model. But this further reinforces my point about your misunderstanding of 'fundamental observational evidence': all evidence is interpreted, and we bring a plethora of preconceptions to those interpretations.
Also, notice that none of your pals have jumped to your defense here. Let me put the question to everyone else: Would the discovery of rabbit fossils in Precambrian geologic strata destroy the discipline of science (as Nick claims), or would it require us to rethink, scientifically, how we've interpreted the data we've accumulated up to now (s I claim)?
"What is the point of your posts eric?"
Just a reasonable response to Ken at #53, who claimed that "Scientism has the added advantage of existing only in the fever dreams of the god-addled but otherwise empty braincases of the drive-by trolls who keep shooting blanks around these parts." The example of Peter Atkins puts the lie to this claim.
Your first post on sciencism was on post #51, so again what is the point of your posts?
eric #119 wrote:
The latter.
But I think it would be very hard to come up with a theory which incorporates all the old data, and accounts for the new data, also. It's a bit like 'what if it turns out that the sun really does go around the earth?' We're now probably talking hypotheses involving aliens with giant portable holodecks or The Matrix. Or a trickster God. Which are all logically possible, and conceivable.
The guy who found the rabbits and got it properly verified would probably win the Templeton, bringing science and religion together.
Let me see if I've got this right. There's a guy named Peter Atkins who makes some rather outlandish statements about science. As a result, science can be conflated with religion.
Self-evident statements need no defense.
A bunny rabbit in the precambrian is about as much of a fundamental destruction of an idea as we can get in science. Nick is right in what he said before, when the likes of Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc. changed the scientific landscape, their ideas were consistent with the evidence. But a bunny in the precambrian would shatter everything we know about biology and geology. It would severely damage the use of the scientific method because it would show how misleading it has been.Of course we won't ever find bunnies in the precambrian, except in an instance of scientific fraud. But as a hypothetical, it does so much to damage science that anything history would be up for reinterpretation.
Jebus, the Redhead drags me out to dinner and all the fun breaks out. Looks like sciencetism has no real definition, so arguing about it is just for fun. Anybody can slide the argument around just by changing definitions. Just throwing an "ism" on something doesn't always make sense. In this case, it doesn't.
I am a devout follower of Wiskeyism with a touch of Cheesburgerism thrown in.
Eric:
Your astronomy is a bit off. Epicycles will not alter the fact that the motion of the satellites around Jupiter was evidence that the Earth was not the center of all motion and the universe. Further, one of the arguments against a heliocentric solar system was that the motion of the Earth would leave the moon behind. Since Jupiter moved through the sky and the satellites kept up, it was possible for the Earth to also move. Galileo said nothing about epicycles.
Finally, It was Kepler that got it right with elliptical orbits and breaking with the church approved "perfect" circular orbits. Had to be perfect in God's heavens, after all. Also got rid of the problematic epicycles as well.
I knew the Rev was a godless Cheeseburgerist!
And here I disagree, as I have before.
There is simply too much evidence in support of biology and geology for one (putatively genuine) anomaly to refute it all. It would mean that we had missed something, yes ... but I think it would be arguable that we had missed something about the physics of space-time and causality rather than about biology and geology.
That is heresy. Here I though the Rev was a godless Baconist.
You mean like a wormhole opening up and a rabbit happening to travel back through time to the precambrian where it was buried?
"Eric:
Your astronomy is a bit off. Epicycles will not alter the fact that the motion of the satellites around Jupiter was evidence that the Earth was not the center of all motion and the universe."
Tell that to Stephen Hawking:
"It was, of course, still possible [after Galileo's discovery] to believe that the earth was at the center of the universe and that the moons of Jupiter moved on extremely complicated paths around the earth, giving the appearance that they orbited Jupiter."
And how did one try to account for 'extremely complicated' motions with the Ptolemaic model? "Just add epicycles."
"What I wrote was that it would "leave their confidence in the scientific method shattered", which of course it would. Clearly you have no idea how science works"
Let's see if Nick is consistent and applies this charge ("you have no idea how science works") to Sastra and Owlmirror, two of the (obviously) best informed and most intelligent regulars on this blog.
Why do you keep appealing to authoritative figures? Argue the evidence, not the person.
Good "god". We have another Eric?
"Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science- by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans- teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us."
CarlMUTHAFUCKINSagan
I think that pretty well sums it up.
A bunny from the Precambrian?
Here you go.
Thanks, Sven. While the voice of Smurfette had her first cartoon gig as the voice of Crusader Rabbit, she doesn't quite date from the Precambrian. Nice related links too. Fractured Flickers! The last time I saw Hans Conried in anything was in The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T. I can appreciate absurdity--it's earnest twaddle like eric's that I can't abide. It has been fun though, pointing and laughing.
Yup. Or rather, someone figuring out how to deliberately open a wormhole in the future and using a rabbit as a test subject. Or something like that.
I would consider either accidental or deliberate time-travel to be a better explanation for such a discovery than for an alleged God using his omnipotence and omniscience to have all of biology be generally consistent with evolution and and all of geology be generally consistent with its record of the 4.5 billion-year-old-Earth, and then putting a rabbit in the Precambrian as "evidence" of his existence.
Note that the latter explanation would mean that this putative God would be fucking with our heads.
Fair enough, I see your point.
Actually, while it would cause a re-think about what had been discovered, it would also cause problems with the understanding of the scientific method, which does, after all, implicitly rely on causality being inviolable (and there not existing a mind-fucking God).
But I think scientists would be able to eventually move past the problem by figuring out the physics of time so as to have a better idea how causality works and under what conditions it can be violated. And they might then send back in time to the Precambrian the very rabbit that they had found fossilized there.
I note that your quote-mine of A Brief History of Time left off the concluding sentence: "However, Copernicus's theory was much simpler."
And it also left off the obvious flaw that Hawking noted with the Ptolemaic model: "But in order to predict these positions correctly, Ptolemy had to make an assumption that the moon followed a path that sometimes brought it twice as close to the Earth as at other times. And that meant that the moon had sometimes to appear twice as big as it usually does."
The Wikipedia article on the Ptolemaic system also points out that Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus contradicted the model as proposed.
The problem with epicycles under the Ptolemaic model is that they are observable, but have no explanation. With better and telescopes, it became clear that the planets were apparently changing motion, but with no observable cause. The appearance of the outer stars were also observably less and less like something fixed to an outer sphere, and more and more like separate bodies unto themselves, especially with anomalous bodies such as comets.
Under the Keplerian / Newtonian solar system, epicycles went away completely, being mere illusions of geometry and perspective. That which does not exist needs no explanation.
Eric:
Your astronomy is a bit off. Epicycles will not alter the fact that the motion of the satellites around Jupiter was evidence that the Earth was not the center of all motion and the universe. Further, one of the arguments against a heliocentric solar system was that the motion of the Earth would leave the moon behind. Since Jupiter moved through the sky and the satellites kept up, it was possible for the Earth to also move. Galileo said nothing about epicycles.
Finally, It was Kepler that got it right with elliptical orbits and breaking with the church approved "perfect" circular orbits. Had to be perfect in God's heavens, after all. Also got rid of the problematic epicycles as well.
Yup. Kepler's discovery that the planets moved in elliptical orbits was the final nail in the coffin of RCC-approved astronomy. The discovery that planetary motions could be used to compute longitude was the garlic that kept the dead RCC-astronomy from rising again; the navies of Europe had been looking for an answer to the longitude problem for centuries, and this was the first practical answer to come along. (Though it would soon be superseded by the chronometers invented by John Harrison and popularized by his legion of imitators in the late 18th century.)
Religion definitely is not free though. It comes at a great cost, 20% of your income on the collection plate give or take, not being allowed to use the logic or reason that you use for everything else in life, oh and its a terrible waste of your entire life. And that's just a fraction of the cost. I think we should come up with a thread an figure out the rest of all the costs.
Rev. BigDumbChimp - Sir, you stand up for bacon, or my ladies will go on an egg strike. And we're not buckin' around.
eric,
Since Owlmirror explicitly agrees that Precambrian rabbits would cause difficulties with the scientific method, and Sastra says:
"We're now probably talking hypotheses involving aliens with giant portable holodecks or The Matrix. Or a trickster God. Which are all logically possible, and conceivable.",
their position differs from mine only in emphasis. Adopting the kind of hypothesis either envisages as necessary to explain the rabbits would itself mean we could have no confidence whatever in any observation - at least unless and until we had a testable hypothesis about what was responsible (even then, "testability" would become very hard to establish). As I said, it is not logically necessary that the universe is susceptible to scientific investigation; an orderly flow of time and an absence of intelligent outside interference with our scientific work are two of the necessary conditions for this susceptibility.
Since you appear to accept the authority of Owlmirror and Sastra, I suggest you now abandon your untenable position. You have not, I note, provided anything approaching what I asked for @94, nor can you.
I chose my example carefully. While it is true that "all observations are interpreted", this truism should not be used to suggest that no observations can be taken as scientifically definitive. Once we get to putative observations as outlandish as fossil Precambrian rabbits, the only hypotheses that can account for them, would themselves indicate that the universe may well not be such as to be susceptible to scientific study. The epistemological implications of time travel, or an interventionist superhuman intelligence (which would not even need to be supernatural) would be devastating.
So far as Atkins is concerned, your clip breaks off just as Atkins (presumably) was about to elucidate his claims in response to Craig. I have tried but so far failed to access the whole debate (Craig's site has a supposed link to it, but at present it does not work for me). If Atkins means his statement literally then he is, of course, wrong, at least in the case of mathematics and logic - the other examples raised by Craig are far less straightforward. (His point that the reliability of science itself cannot be "proven" by science is actually related to the point I've been making; but based on the clip Craig appears to misunderstand how far science relies on defeasible assumptions rather than on proof.) You would have established your point that there is at least one believer in "scientism". So what? As others have asked, why did you introduce this topic in your opening sneer@51? It would only be a valid response to the video if there were something like a "Church of Scientism" with its own membership, collection plates, hierarchy, doctrines and rituals, which there is not. Working scientists, as we all know, range from convinced atheists hostile to religion, such as Atkins and Dawkins, to convinced theists. So, if you were honest, you would simply admit that the video stung, and you wanted to hit back.
Rev BDC, when sir is our next Whiskeyism meeting?
Eric:
While it may be possible for Hawking, as far as I can find, there is no evidence of any such explanation (epicycles) for Jupiter's satellites made at the time. It seems odd to me that Galileo did not reach the same conclusion and just add epicycles. Perhaps an early shave with Occam's razor??
Your assertion that Galileo "*did not* adequately support his conclusions" is simply wrong. His observations of changes in the unchanging heavens, imperfections in heavenly bodies, and non-Earth centered motion were well supported by repeatable observation. Nothing like seeing a satellite disappear on one side of a planet and reappear on the other to bolster Galileo's conclusions. Galileo did not try to get rid of epicycles; that was Kepler's gig. Well actually, Kepler couldn't get Mars right and that's when epicycles had to go. Unless you're one of the still extant wackaloons who still go with the geocentric model, that is.
Hawking not withstanding, the fact that Galileo did not set everything to rights, or even attempt to, in no way makes his conclusions unfounded.
No True Scotsman would throw Cheesburgerism in his Whiskeyism. Not even a little.
Here's the problem in the good ol' USA:
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/106551/?page=entire#comments
Agkistrodon C. Copperhead
The clip is taking too long to load.
Whilst waiting I got on my elbows and said a little spaghette, then it hit me...
Is the Great FSM a Somali? I feel the Earth getting cooler already.
All hail the Great FSM and its minions. Cheap oil for all.
Well the clip loaded OK this time.
I was very disappointed that my FSM was the butt of the clip. May the fleas of a thousand Pastafarians infest your armpits. May all you meatballs turn to tofu and your noodly appendages turn into erectile disfunctional penii.
Great video. Funny about a previous poster mentioning Jesus Didn't Tap.