Author Topic: An Age of Suspicion?  (Read 9650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Osiri

  • 24
I said you SEEM TO BE.  I was not implying that that is who you are.  You are just being very stubborn about even looking to someone elses point of view.

EDIT:
Anyone who does not believe me I will post a video of us dancing.
End EDIT:

I don't know you and will not say that you really get a kick out of bullying.  But you are doing so.  You two are simply saying that anything you don't instantly agree with is wrong.

I didn't agree with the statement by Scottish either until I realized what he was saying.  Now that I understand I know he had a valid point.
Got any patentable ideas?  Got $20K laying around.  I will need every penny to help you.

 

Offline Osiri

  • 24
Oh and the girl thing was a serious comment.  You would be much happier.


OKAY I NEED TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING.

This is my way of trying to lighten a mood vs. actually piss you off.

Alot of the things that have made you guys mad have been jokes.

The serious part of the above message is that both of you have misrepresented what Scottish was saying and that you made him look like a fool when he had a valid point.

Please stop making fun of others.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2005, 10:55:24 am by 3173 »
Got any patentable ideas?  Got $20K laying around.  I will need every penny to help you.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
I don't take kindly to insults, even when you try to hide them under some veil of 'could be', may be.  You have absolutely no ****ing right to presume anything about me, nor less to try and turn some form of made up 'observation' into an attack.

You've been here what, less than a month?  You don't even know the slightest bit about me or karajorma.

EDIT; hey, they fixed the swear filter.  Cool.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
Man don't yall have anything better to do on a Friday night. I come back from a lifesize maze with fiance and then hard dancing collapsing from complete exhaustion.  I wake up  this morning and you guys have left me with pages of materials.  Go out and get a girl for God sake.  


I have a girl. She's read the topic. She told me to verbally kick your arse :D

I'm such a lucky guy ;)

Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
Aldo and Kara seem to be internet bullies.  


Damned right! Five minutes from now when Aldo gets back we're going to turn you upside down and stick your head in the toilet. I'd do it on my own but I think I sprained my thumb giving Scottish a wedgie and I'd only have to do it again when he gets back anyway. :lol:

Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
I have yet to see them agree with anyone other than themselves. So far they seem to say you are wrong and here is the OPINION that I have that I base it on.


I find it incredibly funny that you've completely failed to answer a single comment I've made and now have resorted to calling me and Aldo names in order to win. :lol:

Apart from this topic how often have I actually posted on a topic you were talking about? I made a couple of comments on Fragaria's topic and that's about it.
 If you've only bothered to look at two topics where I happened to disagree with you and agree with Aldo before making such a ludicrous comment then you really don't have much of a case. Every scientist will tell you that two points on graph do not indicate a data trend.

You only need to look a little further to find all kind of topics where I agree with people. Of course you didn't do that because I wouldn't expect you do something as obvious as doing research before making assertions.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2005, 11:03:45 am by 340 »
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma

Damned right! Five minutes from now when Aldo gets back we're going to turn you upside down and stick your head in the toilet. I'd do it on my own but I think I sprained my thumb giving Scottish a wedgie and I'd only have to do it again when he gets back anyway. :lol:


Can I get his lunch money?  :drevil:

 

Offline Osiri

  • 24
YOU'RE KIDDING.  BUT ALL I POSTED WAS MY FINAL CONCLUSIVE BELIEF BASED ON ALL THAT I KNEW BASED ON THE ONLY TWO THREADS I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU.  I THOUGHT THAT SINCE MY HONEST OPINION WAS BASED ON YOUR ACTIONS HERE THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO NOT BE A MISREPRESENTATION AND NOT A LIE OF ANY SORT.  I am soo sorry I just started following your methods.

Now you are turning on your own logic.  Your logic has been thus far that your opinions were based on all that you knew and as such were not misrepresentations.

Now look to my follow ups and see that I was merely playing about the internet bully thing.  As to harming me phyiscally good luck. ;7

I fail to understand this whole fail to answer a single one of your comments comment.  I guess I can go back and look but could you give me an example of a comment that you WANT answered.  I have thus far really only been trying to show your that you are being a sarcastic know it all on this particular thread.  That does not mean you are that on other threads.

Further, I take offense to you and aldo playing this  whole we're the victims here.  You have been every bit as, if not more, insulting as than I.  Just look at what you wrote last.  I am a scientist myself I know two data points are meaningless.  Unless thats all you got and you are forced to make a prediction of thier meaning.  Scientists have to do this all the time.  You cannot always use the cop out of I don't know enough.  You have to make predictions.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2005, 11:15:05 am by 3173 »
Got any patentable ideas?  Got $20K laying around.  I will need every penny to help you.

 

Offline Osiri

  • 24
Just out of curiousity did either of you bother to read what I said in defense of Scottish.  That was the real point of that post.
Got any patentable ideas?  Got $20K laying around.  I will need every penny to help you.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Seeing as how it didn't apply to me I ignored it.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Osiri

  • 24
You attacked Scottish just as much as Aldo.  It applied to both of you.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2005, 12:01:45 pm by 3173 »
Got any patentable ideas?  Got $20K laying around.  I will need every penny to help you.

 

Offline Osiri

  • 24
I could have posted a defense of the world wants to invision its own beliefs as infallible but I don't feel like it at the moment.  

For example look at how the world looked with disgust at anyone who supported M-Theory and now it is becoming a much more accepted thing.  It is unifying all of the 10th dimension theories.  

This is how science thinks it is infallible.  It does not accept new theories until it has to.  

Skepticism is not be a bad thing but it gets a little extreme sometimes.  Sometimes science is stubborn and just refuses to give any credence to new theories that have validity.  Clinging to an old thought is not skepticism.  

This is bad because we want to look at every possibly valid theory.  We should not arbitrarily ignore possibilities.

This hampers scientific advance.

Arrogance in science is not helpful and it is widespread.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2005, 12:00:44 pm by 3173 »
Got any patentable ideas?  Got $20K laying around.  I will need every penny to help you.

 

Offline Scottish

  • Banned
  • 24
I'll simplify my explaination:

All your criteria for truth are based on scientific principle. Therefore, science is at an unfair advantage.

That's about as simple as I can put it.

And despite all your *****ing about omission of evidence and The Truth™ and being open to possibilities, you're still clinging to a set of scientific principles for determining what's Right™ and True™. This is closing you off from accepting the fact that religion only seems stupid because you're judging it using scientific standards. Similarly, when science is viewed using religious standards it's equally stupid.

You're desperately clawing at the excuse of "I see it, so it's true" because it offers you a very simplistic 'proof' that science is right and that observable truths are universal truths.

Whereas religious people would cling to the excuse of "It's true because it's true", which operates infinitely better in a vacuum while having no observable truths. But if you've chosen that path you don't need any - you have the universal truth behind all things, wether they can be explained or not. Your beliefs are simply right.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
YOU'RE KIDDING.  BUT ALL I POSTED WAS MY FINAL CONCLUSIVE BELIEF BASED ON ALL THAT I KNEW BASED ON THE ONLY TWO THREADS I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU.  I THOUGHT THAT SINCE MY HONEST OPINION WAS BASED ON YOUR ACTIONS HERE THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO NOT BE A MISREPRESENTATION AND NOT A LIE OF ANY SORT.  


Look above your shift key and you'll see this button with the words Caps Lock on it. If you've never pressed it before now would be a good time to learn how to use it :rolleye:

I've told you before that shouting is rude and unnecessary in this discussion. If you can't argue without resorting to insults, incorrect guesses about my social life and shouting I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you and will simply write you off as another one of the multitude of obnoxious morons who inhabit the internet.

In short. If you want to discuss try doing so. If you want to make jokes and largely ignore every single post I have written on this topic except when you can twist the truth round to some kind of insult then the ignore button beckons.

Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
I am soo sorry I just started following your methods.

Now you are turning on your own logic.  Your logic has been thus far that your opinions were based on all that you knew and as such were not misrepresentations.


Incorrect. You missed the point I made that when I don't know enough to comment on a subject I either research the subject further or I keep quiet on the subject.

As I said earlier 2 data points are not indicative of a trend. If you had bothered to do some research before posting you might have discovered how wrong your opinions were but you didn't.

Don't bother attempting to claim that you have acted in the same way I have when you quite clearly have not.

Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
I fail to understand this whole fail to answer a single one of your comments comment.  I guess I can go back and look but could you give me an example of a comment that you WANT answered.  I have thus far really only been trying to show your that you are being a sarcastic know it all on this particular thread.  That does not mean you are that on other threads.


Nosense of the highest order. You claimed that I was a bully. You didn't say that I have bullied you on this particular thread. You implied that I do it on every thread.  Those are very different things.

As for questions I've posted that you have ignored. Here's a small selection.

Quote
If you can prove that my intention was to insult you feel free to do so. Seeing as how

a) I doubt you're telepathic either
b) I wasn't trying to insult you

I doubt you'll find it easy.


Quote
Let me get this straight. Taking the example of the court case Flipside posted. Are you telling me that as a defence lawyer if the defendant had said to all the his friends that he was going to kill that guy shortly before the incident you'd put the friends on the stand and make them say that even if the prosecution didn't know it?

Cause that is quite clearly a lie of omission even though I'm sure that most lawyers would do it.


Quote
Make your choice or feel free to point out another alternative.


Quote
Are we back to that claim that I insulted all lawyers again?


Quote
If you're on about some other incidence rather than that ridiculous "he insulted lawyers" claim feel free to point it out.


And that's just a small sampling of the number of questions I've asked that you've ignored. You've pretty much ignored every post of I've made except to reitterate your pathetic claims that I am misrepresenting you (Ignoring my requests for more clarity and comments that I acknowledge that I might have been misunderstanding you) and that I insulted all lawyers everywhere.

Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
Further, I take offense to you and aldo playing this  whole we're the victims here.  You have been every bit as, if not more, insulting as than I.


Absolute complete and utter nonsense. You've arrogantly claimed to know my social life and that I need a girlfriend and you've called me a bully.

Where outside of the insult about lawyers which you fabricated have I said anything similar to you?


 
Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
Just look at what you wrote last.  I am a scientist myself I know two data points are meaningless.  Unless thats all you got and you are forced to make a prediction of thier meaning.  Scientists have to do this all the time.  You cannot always use the cop out of I don't know enough.  You have to make predictions.


How is calling me a bully a prediction? It's an assertion and and an insulting one at that.

 A prediction based on such a small amount of data is something that very few scientists ever bother to make because it carries such a huge margin of error. If two data points are all you've got you'd be advised to simply avoid predicting and simply studing the data as it comes in.

Secondly 2 data points isn't all you have. You could look at all the other discussions on this forum. It's not my fault that you're too lazy to bother doing some research instead of making pointless, easily disprovable assertions.

Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
You attacked Scottish just as much as Aldo.  It applied to both of you.


Your reply was a response to Aldo's comments. It contained nothing relevent to what I had said. If I did miss something feel free to enlighten me.

If you're so keen on defending Scottish perhaps you'd instead like to answer the question I put to him on how you choose which evidence can be discarded instead of wasting your time trying to speculate about my love life again.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2005, 12:30:42 pm by 340 »
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by Scottish
I'll simplify my explaination:

All your criteria for truth are based on scientific principle. Therefore, science is at an unfair advantage.

That's about as simple as I can put it.

And despite all your *****ing about omission of evidence and The Truth™ and being open to possibilities, you're still clinging to a set of scientific principles for determining what's Right™ and True™. This is closing you off from accepting the fact that religion only seems stupid because you're judging it using scientific standards. Similarly, when science is viewed using religious standards it's equally stupid.

You're desperately clawing at the excuse of "I see it, so it's true" because it offers you a very simplistic 'proof' that science is right and that observable truths are universal truths.

Whereas religious people would cling to the excuse of "It's true because it's true", which operates infinitely better in a vacuum while having no observable truths. But if you've chosen that path you don't need any - you have the universal truth behind all things, wether they can be explained or not. Your beliefs are simply right.


The 'excuse' - rationale in actuality - is 'I can see it, thus I know it is there, thus I can examine it and try to understand it'.

AFAIK you've said science is essentially unreliable because it relies on tangibles (I'd suggest that scientific methods of measuring actually exist because of what exists and is postulated to exist to be measured); but what else can be relied upon?  

I'm not sure exactly what you're implying - that we should accept any evidence because it may exist, not because it actually does?  That we cannot measure anything without changing it from what it is?  (granted, there's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but that doesn't preclude that we're measuring something that exists, and it's not a universal principle anyways)  That anything observed is only as important as that which does not exist to be observed but may exist as unobservable?

There is an infinite amount of possible 'truth' that could fit into (urgh, this is a horrible way to try and phrase this) an 'intangible universe', but we cannot rely upon something that may or may not exist as any form of rationale.

I'm not sure what your point is - that science can only measure and rely upon what is known and can be shown to exist?  History, certainly, has not shown science to be immutable to change and revision, and it's not shown science to regard the currently observable 'universe' as the only observable (just the best and most reliable source of evidence).

Can you define or cite an intangle, unmeasurable or unobservable 'fact' (nee truth) which can be known to be reliably 'true'?  That we can trust without seeing, and without it being just blind faith?

Science has never presented itself as 'The Truth' (sorry, I don't know the correct code for 'TM' superscript), just the best answer based on what we know.  That is all science is.  Belief, faith draws absolutes, science draws the most likely, the most probably, the strongest, etc etc conclusion, theory or object based on what we know and can test.  Science allows intangibles, it plans them, predicts them where possible - but it doesn't rely upon them, it doesn't assume them to be true, false or otherwise.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
What am I? F**king invisible or something?

I ask questions and never recieve a response. :rolleyes:
« Last Edit: October 22, 2005, 01:23:04 pm by 340 »
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
What am I? F**king invisible or something?


I dunno.  I can see your post online, but that's just using my eyes, and they can't see everything, so it's unknown.

Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
I ask questions and never recieve a response. :rolleyes:


Maybe you're asking questions that are too hard?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2005, 04:19:08 pm by 181 »

 

Offline vyper

  • 210
  • The Sexy Scotsman
Quote
Originally posted by Osiri
YOU'RE KIDDING.  BUT ALL I POSTED WAS MY FINAL CONCLUSIVE BELIEF BASED ON ALL THAT I KNEW BASED ON THE ONLY TWO THREADS I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU.  I THOUGHT THAT SINCE MY HONEST OPINION WAS BASED ON YOUR ACTIONS HERE THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO NOT BE A MISREPRESENTATION AND NOT A LIE OF ANY SORT.  I am soo sorry I just started following your methods.


Jumping the gun FTW! :D
"But you live, you learn.  Unless you die.  Then you're ****ed." - aldo14

 

Offline Scottish

  • Banned
  • 24
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14


The 'excuse' - rationale in actuality - is 'I can see it, thus I know it is there, thus I can examine it and try to understand it'.

Just because you see something doesn't make it true.

Quote
AFAIK you've said science is essentially unreliable because it relies on tangibles (I'd suggest that scientific methods of measuring actually exist because of what exists and is postulated to exist to be measured); but what else can be relied upon?

Well, the obvious answer would be 'faith'.

But I prefer to rely simply on my knowledge that nothing is inherantly right - regardless of how well it works.

Quote
I'm not sure exactly what you're implying - that we should accept any evidence because it may exist, not because it actually does?  That we cannot measure anything without changing it from what it is?  (granted, there's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but that doesn't preclude that we're measuring something that exists, and it's not a universal principle anyways)  That anything observed is only as important as that which does not exist to be observed but may exist as unobservable?

I'm implying that before you take Evidence to be Truth, you should examine what made you decide the Evidence was valid in the first place - what defined your criteria for Truth.

Quote
There is an infinite amount of possible 'truth' that could fit into (urgh, this is a horrible way to try and phrase this) an 'intangible universe', but we cannot rely upon something that may or may not exist as any form of rationale.

We cannot rely on anything, as we can never reliably assign it an absolute value, and we must bear this in mind when trying to find Truth.

If something works, use it, but don't keep saying it works when it stops working.

All that our knowledge will ever amount to is a 'best guess'. Never an absolute Truth.

Quote
I'm not sure what your point is - that science can only measure and rely upon what is known and can be shown to exist?  History, certainly, has not shown science to be immutable to change and revision, and it's not shown science to regard the currently observable 'universe' as the only observable (just the best and most reliable source of evidence).

You consider Scientific Method to be a tool of Science, when infact, Science is simply the accumulated knowledge of Scientific Method.

So when you try to analyse anything using 'impartial observation', you're subjecting it to the standards of Science. Which is why Religion appears stupid in the eyes of a scientist. It doesn't conform to Scientific Method, so you assume it's Wrong, when infact it simply isn't Science.

Quote
Can you define or cite an intangle, unmeasurable or unobservable 'fact' (nee truth) which can be known to be reliably 'true'?  That we can trust without seeing, and without it being just blind faith?

Again, you're doing the Science thing of assuming things which cannot be observed are Wrong.

You're asking for examples of Religion which conform to Science - and there simply are none. They're an entirely different manner.

I'm not trying to tell you how to view Religion from a Scientific perspective, I'm telling you to stop looking.

Quote
Science has never presented itself as 'The Truth' (sorry, I don't know the correct code for 'TM' superscript), just the best answer based on what we know.  That is all science is.  Belief, faith draws absolutes, science draws the most likely, the most probably, the strongest, etc etc conclusion, theory or object based on what we know and can test.  Science allows intangibles, it plans them, predicts them where possible - but it doesn't rely upon them, it doesn't assume them to be true, false or otherwise.

But it assumes Scientific Method to be a measure of current Truth.

It never examines the possibility that the very dependence upon evidence may infact be a weakness in it's understanding of Truth.

 
*nods towards original post* Before we derail the train so far that the cargo is lost, let's save what we can...

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
Maybe you're asking questions that are too hard?


I think so. The question I asked Scottish for instance. I'm still waiting for a sensible answer to that one.

For all he's saying that other forms of evidence apart from visible and testable should be considered I'll notice that he's completely avoided saying what weight they should carry.

Should saying that gremlins did it carry equal weight with ballistic evidence in a court of law? Should I tell my boss that I was late to work because my unicorn was sick and not expect to get sacked? Is it a numbers thing? Can I get away with the above if I can find 10 witness who all claim to have seen my sick unicorn? What if I find 30? 100?

From Scottish's refusal to answer I guess we'll never know as he's refused explain on which criterion you can dump evidence as coming from a dodgy source or being biased.


The problem doesn't exist if you only take tangiable evidence in the first place but if Scottish really wants to argue the point he should do more than telling us science is wrong and start telling when and how it's right and when we have to use something else.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2005, 02:15:10 am by 340 »
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by Scottish

Just because you see something doesn't make it true.


It means I can reasonably certain it exists.  Can you see your hand?  Do you doubt it exists?  Do you think there is a more likely explanation for seeing a hand beyond there being, well, a 5 fightered appendage at the end of your arm?

I mean, we are still on the scientific issue of evidence here, aren't we?  And science itself has never presumed absolutes - it's never presumed something is true, but that it is most likely to be true.

 You seem to keep reiterating that scientific investigation - itself an extension of our own sensory perception - assumes absolucy  (er, is that a word? :o) when it patently doesn't.

Quote
Originally posted by Scottish
Well, the obvious answer would be 'faith'.

But I prefer to rely simply on my knowledge that nothing is inherantly right - regardless of how well it works.


That is the scientific perception; nothing is defined as 'right', but most likely.  Because to do so (presume it was right) would preclude further investigation.  In the case of overwhelming evidence (that sort of includes intangible; because intangible may or may not exist, it's pretty safe to include that as infinity evidence for and infinity evidence against, and ignore it), then it becomes orthodoxy; but it is never considered un-disproveable.

Quote
Originally posted by Scottish
I'm implying that before you take Evidence to be Truth, you should examine what made you decide the Evidence was valid in the first place - what defined your criteria for Truth.


I don't take evidence to be 'Truth' - capital T or otherwise - but as, well, evidence pointing towards the most likely truth.  And I consider evidence on the basis of my ability to perceive it, to measure it, i.e. to be able to know it is there.

Quote
Originally posted by Scottish

We cannot rely on anything, as we can never reliably assign it an absolute value, and we must bear this in mind when trying to find Truth.


What is 'Truth'?  I've never dealt in absolutes; I don't believe there are any universal truths in actuality but I've never claimed to have proof of that because it's transcending the boundaries of an observable universe.

This in itself an important distinction; science works by examining the observable world; the supernatural is excluded because of its inobservable nature.

 (note; I'm defining the supernatural as what can never be observed, thus known to exist, and not as that which is current;y observable but can be postulated to be at a later date, when hypotheses can be tested against it)

Quote
Originally posted by Scottish

If something works, use it, but don't keep saying it works when it stops working.

All that our knowledge will ever amount to is a 'best guess'. Never an absolute Truth.


Again, that's all science does.  Except it quantifies best guesses with reasoning and evidence.

No-one (supporting the scientific perspective) here has claimed science has provided or intends to provide universal answers, nor that it continues to support insupportable theories.  People may struggle to drop orthodoxy, but that's just human nature to cling to the familiar, not the correct scientific process.

If you're implying science has 'stopped working', I think you'll have to provide some sort of justification for that.

Quote
Originally posted by Scottish

You consider Scientific Method to be a tool of Science, when infact, Science is simply the accumulated knowledge of Scientific Method.

So when you try to analyse anything using 'impartial observation', you're subjecting it to the standards of Science. Which is why Religion appears stupid in the eyes of a scientist. It doesn't conform to Scientific Method, so you assume it's Wrong, when infact it simply isn't Science.


No, I don't.  I assume it's (a theory espoused by religion) not as qualified as science, when it's not based upon or even contradicted by observable evidence.  Because we can draw any conclusion based on inobservable evidence because we don't know what that evidence is.

The scientific method, incidentally, is the definition of how to investigate something.  It's the evolution of human thought & sense processes for empirical investigation, dating from Ancient Egyptian times (the Elbers Papyrus - 1550BC - contains some evidence of empirical investigation) and more formally from about 5th BC.

Quote
Originally posted by Scottish

Again, you're doing the Science thing of assuming things which cannot be observed are Wrong.

You're asking for examples of Religion which conform to Science - and there simply are none. They're an entirely different manner.

I'm not trying to tell you how to view Religion from a Scientific perspective, I'm telling you to stop looking.


Never was looking.  Never said that inobservable was wrong.  I said it could not be used as a basis for any conclusion, because it's essentially free to be invented to suit.

The only point where religion is viewed from a scientific perspective, is where science - that is, what we can observe and thus know to be happening - and directly contradicts religion.  Like Genesis in the Bible.

Quote
Originally posted by Scottish

But it assumes Scientific Method to be a measure of current Truth.

It never examines the possibility that the very dependence upon evidence may infact be a weakness in it's understanding of Truth.


What's the alternative?  Just making stuff up?

Science is simple; A + B implies C, where A and B are observable and can be reliably known to be true as a result.  Would like a situation where A + B + C implies D, where C is in fact completely unknown 'intangible evidence'?  Would that make the conclusion more, or less reliable because it relies on a stated assumption?

And what exactly do you define 'Truth' as being/meaning?  Presumably it's important enough for its own capital, and thus special in some way.  

If it's the religious aspect of 'Truth' (universal truth, I suppose that would be), then that's entirely aside from science; the supernatural, the inobservable is of no value for investigating the observable universe.  What would you suggest we do?  I mean, science does already place constraints upon itself; it's not immutable, it relies upon basis and testing to prove events, it works within an observable universe where we can at least know things, and it doesn't presume to be absolute in its conclusions.  What would you suggest as a better method for investigating the observable universe than, well, observing it?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2005, 07:06:36 am by 181 »