Complexity? Really?

[Cognostic]

Hasn’t had any affect on me at all. None at all.

[Sheldon]

I have no problem with ideas being vigorously challenged, quite the contrary. I just object to @Sherlock-Holmes pretending objective facts have no more merit than subjective religious beliefs, and only when it suits him.

[Kevin_Levites]

I understand. 20 characters.

[Cognostic]

@Sheldon

pretending objective facts have no more merit than subjective religious beliefs, and only when it suits you.

But but but… what about … "metaphysics. spirituality, hard solipsism, the spiritual realms, quantum worlds, you you can’t profess to know these things are not true. They are all possibilities.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Kevin_Levites

I seriously doubt that you are a working scientist.

If you have evidence that something is different from the scientific consensus, then that’s fine. I’ve disagreed with the common consensus in my line of work as a paramedic, as I’ve argued that Black people shouldn’t be treated with a different standard of care from White people when it comes to specific medical problems.

The crutch is the strength of your arguments and the quality of your evidence.

You should be aware of common and subtle fallacies, such as the straw man argument, poisoning the well, the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, the false dilemma, the argument from ignorance fallacy, the cherry-picking fallacy, the argument from authority fallacy, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, the false dichotomy, the excluded middle fallacy (closely related to false dichotomy), the ad hominen fallacy, and–of course–the slippery slope fallacy.

Also, brush up on Occam’s Razor, and keep in mind that what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If your argument respects these principles, then it’s important.

Otherwise, you’re a crackpot.

And please keep in mind that I have very little use for “faith” (at least in how religious people use the term), as it was science that found cures and vaccines for disease, it was science that made large scale food production possible, and so forth.

Science has “cured” more human misery than religion ever did. For thousands of years, religion had its chance, and fell short.

Speaking of strawmen you didn’t address what I actually wrote - all evidence is interpreted, within some overall worldview.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@CyberLN

Of course you don’t….

I’m in good company too, here’s what Prof. Chomsky has to say about this:

“In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I’ve done my work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I’ve often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia. No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn’t care less. What they want to know is what I have to say. No one has ever objected to my right to speak, asking whether I have a doctor’s degree in mathematics, or whether I have taken advanced courses in the subject. That would never have entered their minds. They want to know whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better approaches are possible—the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.”

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Sheldon

Indeed, which is why methods like science and logic are the best we have, as part of those methods is to remove exactly such subjective bias. Religions on the other hand have spent millennia championing closed minded subjective bias, they call it faith.

That’s not really true, it’s an over simplification. Consider quantum mechanics, we have bucket loads of data and observations in this area yet we also have different interpretations of that data. Different physicists adopt different interpretations, they choose the one that satisfies them more than the others, there is not experimental data preferring one over another.

[Cognostic]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Consider quantum mechanics,

Okay…
Can you demonstrate that infinite dimensional systems are real and not just mathematical constructs? Show me a 10th dimension.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Cognostic

Why would the presence of the universe imply anything more than ‘the presence of the universe.’ It’s there. I can see it, Touch it. Sense it. That’s it. That is absolutely all it implies. If you actually think about it, even asking 'Where did it come from, is a biased question." I am making the assumption, without any warrant at all, that it came from somewhere. I have to base that on my own experience and not on anything to do with ‘it.’ All I know, is that from my limited perception, ‘It is there.’ (I might be wrong in many ways.) It implies - there is something there.

An egg implies a chicken, a falling object implies a force field, if you have a worldview then every observation will likely carry an implication and different worldviews will lead to different implications. The implication might not be correct but to a scientifically astute person there always is an implication, unless one wanders into metaphysics perhaps.

To take an observations and react “it’s just there” isn’t really how a typical scientifically inclined person will react. Newton didn’t look at the moon and mindlessly assert “Look, it’s there, we’re done” did he?

Einstein didn’t look at Maxwell’s equations and just assert “OK so the speed of light might always be what it is, so what, we’re done here” did he?

No, in each case the observations or data carried some meaning, in some cases (like the two I cited) the ramifications were that the worldview needed to changed, only a new worldview could accommodate the data.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Cognostic

Okay…
Can you demonstrate that infinite dimensional systems are real and not just mathematical constructs? Show me a 10th dimension.

I said what I said, there is no single correct interpretation of the observational evidence pertaining to quantum physics. Do you agree or not?

[Cognostic]

@Sherlock-Holmes

An egg implies a chicken,

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … That is the fucking stupidest thing I have ever heard. How many snakes do you know that have chicken babies? You are a klutz.

You could not convince a kindergartener of the plausibility of your idiotic nonsense. Have you any idea at all how to form a proper argument?

Do you even know what you are arguing?

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Cognostic

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … That is the fucking stupidest thing I have ever heard. How many snakes do you know that have chicken babies? You are a klutz.

It’s called “metaphor”. The obvious point I’m making is that observations do carry implications, this is the driver in fact of science, pursue the implications, describe relationships and so on. Really this is not a contentious point, I can’t understand why all the fuss and certainly no justification for abuse and insults.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Sheldon

Judging from his claims, I doubt he has even a basic grasp of how the methods of science work. If he thinks all evidence is subjectively interpreted, which implies that all evidence is equally valid-invalid, and science is of no more use at validating ideas than a ouija board.

All evidence is subjectively interpreted, I think that’s true. Different people often do interpret the same information in different ways. I just explained that in quantum physics there are different interpretations - physicists choose the one that they find most satisfying.

Did you not know about the interpretation problem in quantum physics?

So far as science is concerned it’s important only that each interpretations be self consistent and consistent with all observations.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Kevin_Levites

Added later after further thought: I possibly have even more in common with Sherlock than I like to admit, as a part of my issue with morphine and Black people comes from a religious influence in my upbringing. This is because a common Jewish value is that the phrase “I was following orders” is not an excuse to do something that is wrong.

That was an interesting post and I can only admire someone who does your job. It’s not well known but the AAAS once advocated eugenics. An institution that was highly respected and led by experts who were admired, ended up supporting eugenics - this is something all of us should keep in mind when we treat science as some kind of infallible dogma.

The fact is that science has limitations, in terms of knowledge it has boundaries and rests on assumptions and deeply cherished beliefs. It is this boundary of science that is often overlooked in discussions about God or atheism and so on.

There are questions about reality that are inapplicable to scientific inquiry, the stubborn faith that I see among some here that science can be applied to all such questions is naive.

[Kevin_Levites]

You seem to think that “science” claims to have an absolute monopoly on truth, and this isn’t so.

The method and process of science is much, much more important than the findings of science, as science is a self-correcting enterprise.

It’s only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths . . . which–incidentally–almost sounds like something a Buddhist would say, but I digress.

There have been many occasions where the concensus of scientists was wrong, and it corrected itself (eugenics is no exception).

As an example, stress and excess acid from anxiety was believed to contribute to peptic ulcer disease, so treatment entailed anacids and tranquilizers. Now–as a result of questioning conventional wisdom–doctors believe that the spirochete bacteria Helicobacter pylori is responsible for most gastric ulcers, and antibiotics treat the condition very well.

There are many, many more examples that I can give.

There are many things that the scientific community is convinced of right now that are wrong.

The difference between science and religion is that science can admit when it’s wrong about something.

[CyberLN]

@Sherlock-Holmes

There are questions about reality that are inapplicable to scientific inquiry, the stubborn faith that I see among some here that science can be applied to all such questions is naive.

I suppose that could be the case. However, I suspect those questions, themselves, can be quite silly. Mental masturbation can be entertaining but is it useful in the same way as scientific/technical inquiry? The latter, after all, produces results that can do things like put food in people’s bellies and cure diseases.
I’m not sure why you seem so adamant in your insistence that folks qualified to pursue scientific inquiry are so prejudiced by assumptions that the totality of the results arrived at are suspect. That is what seems suspect. That you seem more willing to accept that which cannot be overtly demonstrated as truth yet dismiss that which actually has been demonstrated is astonishing.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Kevin_Levites

You seem to think that “science” claims to have an absolute monopoly on truth, and this isn’t so.

No, that’s not what I said, it is some people who appear to believe it does, I certainly do not think that.

@Kevin_Levites

The difference between science and religion is that science can admit when it’s wrong about something.

That’s an odd statement, I mean there are good arguments as to why “science” can be described as being like a “religion” there are many examples of parallels between the two - dogma, insistence on being qualified to discuss and question claims, an intolerance of dissent and so on.

There’s also the recurring conflation of theism and religion, I see it all the time in these kinds of forums. By turning arguments about theism into arguments about religion, the atheist can then attack the many flaws we see in religion and thereby mislead the audience into thanking these are flaws in theism.

It’s a strawman and these threads are littered with examples of this.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@CyberLN

I suppose that could be the case. However, I suspect those questions, themselves, can be quite silly.

So you believe that if a question doesn’t have have a scientific answer, it is therefore a silly question? Consider the question of determinism, is the universe deterministic? if so, what gave rise to that determinism? these are reasonable questions about the world surely, not silly?

@CyberLN

The latter, after all, produces results that can do things like put food in people’s bellies and cure diseases.

Yes, science does indeed have utility, I don’t think I said otherwise!

@CyberLN

I’m not sure why you seem so adamant in your insistence that folks qualified to pursue scientific inquiry are so prejudiced by assumptions that the totality of the results arrived at are suspect.

I said no such thing!

@CyberLN

That you seem more willing to accept that which cannot be overtly demonstrated as truth yet dismiss that which actually has been demonstrated is astonishing.

To what specifically are you referring? is it something I said or something you think I said?

[Kevin_Levites]

@Sherlock-Holmes

There’s also the recurring conflation of theism and religion, I see it all the time in these kinds of forums. By turning arguments about theism into arguments about religion, the atheist can then attack the many flaws we see in religion and thereby mislead the audience into thanking these are flaws in theism.

Your point is well-taken if you argue that many people confuse a belief in a religion with a belief in God, and I accept that criticism as I often use these ideas interchangably when they are really quite distinct from each other.

Even so, it is a respected principle of argument that a claimant must defend the claim, not require proof from the audience that the claim is wrong.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Kevin_Levites

Even so, it is a respected principle of argument that a claimant must defend the claim, not require proof from the audience that the claim is wrong.

I fully agree, not sure why you think otherwise of me. But we’re not discussing science now but philosophy, the nature and structure of reason and knowledge.

Not all assertions are scientific assertions, logic and reason precede science. Mathematical arguments and proofs for example are nothing to do with science.

So defending some proposition simply requires the clear statement of initial premises and then a sequence of logical steps from them. If you’re arguing that only scientifically defensible propositions are valid then we’re going to disagree I think because I a not an empiricist.