If we intuitively knew what was logical and scientific, then why would we need complex methods to think scientifically or rationally? Superstition is innate in us, and that’s why we need logic and science, to check that impulse.
1 Like
Well you qualified your response with the assertion (emboldened below), and so I was minded to make my response. You stated it was true, then said you disagreed, how can one disagree with what they believe to be true?
By all the definitions you have so eloquently laid down here, it is true. I must, by definition be agnostic about the unfalsifiable. I don’t agree of course, but there is nothing wrong with that.
I get science, in that it is built upon through observation and experiment, but logic? Wouldn’t you agree that while logic may not be intuitive, it was nonetheless just a product of pure thought?
Lol okay, I have been a very sloppy interlocutor today. What I wanted to get across was that I think there may be another way to deal with the unfalsifiable outside the rules you have outlined here. Please do not ask me for one for I am yet to give it due thought.
That would be true of the scientific method, they are both human creations. Again I am a little out of my depth, but formal logic is based on mathematics. One of the core principles of logic is that nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational. So avoiding such fallacies is an important step if we care that our reasoning is not irrational. Common logical logical fallacies, or fallacies in informal logic are not very difficult to spot, and you can just Google common logical fallacies, and get a long list of these. The more familiar you are with these, the less likely you are to ever use them in your reasoning.
Well then we have something to look forward to for another day.
Don’t get phased by anyone arguing with you, it’s not a personal comment. The more time you spend here, the more used to each posters MO you will become. Our bark is often worse than our bite.
There was a 19th century British cleric who opined that everything of possible value had been invented. That nothing more of importance would ever be invented.
That mentality seems to be a mixture or arrogance, ignorance, lack of imagination and stupidity ( Stupidity is not a job requirement, but a definite advantage to the clergy and their sheep)
1 Like
Dictionaries give USAGE, not definitions.
…common mistake…
Look up “gay” in a 90’s dictionary.
Usage is fine for twitter…Definition is best for serious discussion.
Dictionary definitions reflect common usage. Words can have nuanced or different definitions based on common usage, hence them being numbered in the dictionary. These can and do change over time. The current primary definition of disbelief is not as you claim a contrary claim to a belief, it is the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Its secondary definition is a lack of faith, so that doesn’t support your claim either.
The word gay has more than one meaning in different contexts, as do many words. Its dictionary definitions reflect the most commonly understood definition. Which again reflects common usage. the fact it’s definition has changed has no bearing on my point or your claim, since I am using the current definition of disbelief.
I gave the definition, your claim was wrong. I disbelieve in any deity or deities, that is not a claim they don’t exist, which I have no epistemological basis to make. Unbelief and disbelief are broadly speaking the same thing, except unbelief specifically mentions religious belief in its definition. They both mention lack of faith, and are synonymous with atheism.
I’m curious where you think word definitions are obtained, if not from dictionaries?
Incidentally if you Google, the definition of disbelief, atheism is offered as a synonym. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is not a claim that no deity exists, as you incorrectly asserted disbelief was.
1 Like
Not just him, it was the general opinion of the scientific community of the late 19th century was that science was more or less complete. The quantum revolution, relativity and all that has happened since then has made it clear that what we know about the world around us is actually negligible compared to what there is to know.
Or was it the general population?
Because my knowledge of that era was one of many scientists making many breakthroughs. From Bohr to Mendel to Einstein, we have giants who made tremendous advances in our understanding of this universe.
Those breakthroughs came at the turn of the century, i.e the beginning of the 20th century, but just before that people thought science was done.
Well the general population only knows as much about the state of science as the scientific community tells them so…
I was asking this question because we are all aware of the story of the Charles Duell (Commissioner of US patent office in 1899) stated “everything that can be invented has been invented”. But within the scientific community between 1850 and 1950, tremendous advances were made.
But Duell was a lawyer, not a scientist.
[quote=“Reiza_Z, post:474, topic:65”]I
Well the general population only knows as much about the state of science as the scientific community tells them so…
[/quote]
My formal study was before the IT revolution. It stunned me to discover that generally speaking, what was ‘common knowledge’ in the general community was usually at least 20 years out of date.
It is my understanding that this is getting worse. I read somewhere that within 10 years, 70% of everything we known will be wrong. Now I don’t remember where or when I read that, so it must be taken as anecdotal, but it sounds about right to me .
It seems to me that most people do not continue studying in any organised way after finishing high school or an undergraduate degree. The professions seem to be the exception, but within a narrow field.
AlvinToffler wrote a fascinating book in 1970, called Future Shock. The premise was about information overload.(about 20 years before the IT revolution reallly got going)
Interesting doco link below:
OK
(you just gotta be a teacher in one of the touchy/feely areas)
Atheism is simple lack of belief in a god or gods
Whatever other yadda-yadda you wish to apply to it…enjoy…
Resorting to puerile ad hominem is not a sound argument, but then since your original claim was wrong that is perhaps predictable, if a little juvenile.
I generally have a lot of patience, as others who post here can attest, but it does have it’s limits, so lets assume this is just a purple patch for you, and hopefully not your MO when someone dares to disagrees with a claim you have made, and in a debate forum at that.
Now, any chance you are going to enlighten us as to where you think we can find word definitions, since you claim they are not to be found in dictionaries?
Perhaps when you reveal this source, you can present the definition for disbelief that supports your claim that is in fact a claim no deity exists?
I am all agog with anticipation, after all it’s not every day one’s entire point of reference for word definitions is found to be erroneous. A new dawn and limitless erudition surely awaits, that has hitherto evaded me, and everyone else who rashly and foolishly thought dictionaries gave word definitions, of course.
Please don’t keep us in suspense now, after all this is not Twitter, as you churlishly pointed out.
1 Like
Rather foolishly I have been using the dictionary again, and it appears the dictionary defines seek as “attempt to find (something).” So perhaps you can offer your source for the definition of words you claim are not defined by dictionaries, as my foolish reliance on the dictionary as a reference for word definitions is making your assertions identical, and therefor meaningless?
I am going to write a stern letter to my old school for hoodwinking me into using dictionaries, as soon as you show us all your alternative source for word definitions of course, so I can learn how to write all over again.
They differ only in that unbelief specifically mentions religion, they both mention faith, and all the definitions I can find offer atheism as a synonym for both of them.
Nope, not according to any dictionary I can find, so do please explain your reference source for this claim?
Disbelief
noun
-
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
-
lack of faith.
Similar:
UNBELIEF
It seems Google is as erroneous as a dictionary here, baffling?
Opposite:
belief
And there was me operating under the delusion that a belief was the affirmation of a claim, like “there is no god” for instance, which is a claim and therefore a belief??
This is very disconcerting, the sooner @vicillinden shares his reference source for word definitions the better, so I can try and see how much damage my reliance on dictionaries has caused.
I would like to touch on this comment.
The scientific community does not control the flow of information. Yes, some scientific teams desire to keep their experiments under wraps until they can publish final results in a study of experiment. But overall, scientists publish their information as soon as possible.
It is not that the scientific community withhold information, it is the general population who make little attempt to keep up with developments.
I will never pretend I am a member of the scientific community, but I try to keep myself informed. And with the internet at my fingertips, it is easy.
1 Like
There is no way the general public can know more about science than the scientific community does. They either know less or just as much and THAT depends on how much the scientific community is willing to share.
They at least control the flow of fresh scientific information because any new or developing science is always known first by the scientist(s) that is/are at the forefront of the development, only after publication does the information enter the public domain. That’s axiomatic.