03 Apr 2008, 3:57 pm
03 Apr 2008, 4:03 pm
03 Apr 2008, 4:07 pm
gekitsu wrote:
ragtime: you indeed have a point about the comparison - but then, i still dont see the notion of evil existing "objectively"
Well, gekitsu, who says it has to exist objectively? What if it exists "insofar as we can tell"? Since "insofar as we can tell" is the maximum evidence we can have for a thing, all such things should be considered true, if for no other reason than practicality.
That's my point. I don't need to objectively prove something to my brain to firmly believe it. I can, instead, and for the sake of practicality, be only 99.999999% sure, and rightly believe it to be true. Who cares if, against all odds, I'm wrong, and in a way that mankind could not have even measured or predicted?
The point is that I went with the best evidence I had at the time. I was responsible with the data. And that evidence leads me to firmly believe that evil is real.
Last edited by Ragtime on 03 Apr 2008, 4:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
03 Apr 2008, 4:14 pm
03 Apr 2008, 4:21 pm
03 Apr 2008, 4:31 pm
MissConstrue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
BesideYouInTime wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
So you don't believe anything that hasn't been proven in a lab?
I don't believe in anything that cannot by any means be quantified by science. This doesn't necessarily mean it has to empirically proven in a lab setting.
Well, if you're not referring to a lab setting, than what exactly do you mean by "science"?
If you experience something 100 times in a row, and therefore expect the same thing to happen again, is that "science" to you? Because that would be why I believe in God and evil -- both God and evil, respectively, continually evidence themselves in my life, to the point that they are simply unignorable, to say the least.
What's your standard for something to be "science"? This is an important question here, because you're essentially saying you don't believe anything that's not science. So it's VERY important to define, exactly, what science is. Science is your standard of truth, but what is your standard of science?
Finally someone's making sense. I thought the whole lab concept was getting plain crazy over an ideology. I won't say anymore.
Oh wow, did the following referrence just fall into my lap, or what? I just got done writing about scientific errors, when I read this article:
"Mich. boy finds 1981 Smithsonian error"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_re_us/smarter_than_the_smithsonian
One of the most scientifically revered museums on the planet, and it makes a mistake which is spotted by NO SCIENTISTS -- either who have worked for OR have visited the Smithsonian Museum -- for 27 fricken' years!! Until, finally, a 5th grader spots it and bails them out.
And no, "smart kid" is not all we should take away from this story -- any more than "dumb scientists" is.
This is just too perfect to prove my point.
This story should provide a long- and much-needed ego deflation in the scientific community.
And, if scientists did notice it -- as apparently some did during the founding of the museum -- their not coming forward with this information demonstrates another effective incompetence which is endemic to the scientific community:
Not wanting to make waves.
Often, this tendency to keep the status quo in the face of conflicting data is fostered by intimidation/threats from superiors.
I call it "effective incomptence" because, if no one is willing to stand up and say, "Look, you guys are wrong. What you're passing off as science isn't, and you're going to hurt a lot of people if you don't correct this", then errors get taught to the next generation and the next, until evolution is eventually taught as fact.
(See Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled", which elaborates on this intimidation, coming to theaters April 18th.)
04 Apr 2008, 5:44 am
All these academic back-and-forth is very good, but lest we forget:
The second one of our Aspie psychiatrists does someone we do not like, we scream and shout they they are evil incarnate. Pathetic. If evil doesn't affect anyone on WP, we say it must be a figment of the imagination. 
04 Apr 2008, 1:00 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Well, gekitsu, who says it has to exist objectively? What if it exists "insofar as we can tell"? Since "insofar as we can tell" is the maximum evidence we can have for a thing, all such things should be considered true, if for no other reason than practicality.
That's my point. I don't need to objectively prove something to my brain to firmly believe it. I can, instead, and for the sake of practicality, be only 99.999999% sure, and rightly believe it to be true. Who cares if, against all odds, I'm wrong, and in a way that mankind could not have even measured or predicted?
The point is that I went with the best evidence I had at the time. I was responsible with the data. And that evidence leads me to firmly believe that evil is real.
That's my point. I don't need to objectively prove something to my brain to firmly believe it. I can, instead, and for the sake of practicality, be only 99.999999% sure, and rightly believe it to be true. Who cares if, against all odds, I'm wrong, and in a way that mankind could not have even measured or predicted?
The point is that I went with the best evidence I had at the time. I was responsible with the data. And that evidence leads me to firmly believe that evil is real.
ey, im not against the idea that evil isnt real - just au contraire.
i just say that there is no difference between "real" and "invention of the mind", when you take a close look at the terms. (at least as long as im given enough leeway with the second term to maneuver it outside the constructivist tendency it has).
id even say that "insofar as we can tell" isnt a 99.999% deal - its absolute.
im not against evil as something very real - im against the notion of "real" as referring to an independent reality.
04 Apr 2008, 1:03 pm
slowmutant wrote:
All these academic back-and-forth is very good, but lest we forget:
The second one of our Aspie psychiatrists does someone we do not like, we scream and shout they they are evil incarnate. Pathetic. If evil doesn't affect anyone on WP, we say it must be a figment of the imagination.
The second one of our Aspie psychiatrists does someone we do not like, we scream and shout they they are evil incarnate. Pathetic. If evil doesn't affect anyone on WP, we say it must be a figment of the imagination.
Why not say it is a figment of the imagination? What stops us? I mean, tasty does not have an objective element to it but we call things tasty or not so all of the time. So, what prevents evil from being the same kind of phenomenon? Certainly if it is like this, it is a different thing than most of us presume, but why isn't it possible that the sensation of "evil" we get is merely a psychological element?
04 Apr 2008, 1:13 pm
gekitsu wrote:
im not against evil as something very real - im against the notion of "real" as referring to an independent reality.
You're more fascinated with philosophy than I am, that's for sure.
See, to me, everything you're saying is mere musings.
But to the philosophy student, musings are golden.
My best friend of 10 years was a philosophy major, and loved this kind of thinking.
04 Apr 2008, 1:15 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
All these academic back-and-forth is very good, but lest we forget:
The second one of our Aspie psychiatrists does someone we do not like, we scream and shout they they are evil incarnate. Pathetic. If evil doesn't affect anyone on WP, we say it must be a figment of the imagination.
The second one of our Aspie psychiatrists does someone we do not like, we scream and shout they they are evil incarnate. Pathetic. If evil doesn't affect anyone on WP, we say it must be a figment of the imagination.
Why not say it is a figment of the imagination? What stops us?
How about a desire for accuracy?
04 Apr 2008, 1:17 pm
04 Apr 2008, 2:09 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
How about a desire for accuracy?
But how can we say that claiming "evil exists" is more accurate than the other way around? There is no philosophical way to prove good or evil, so it seems to me that the claim is an aim at less accuracy.
Well, there is no philisophical way to prove anything.
Philosophy is all about seemingness, even thought its aim is truth.
And it is dangerous to isolate the manmade construct "philosophy" from
all other logical thought, and thus to act as if philosophy alone can give us the answers to life.
It's fun to think it can, though.
04 Apr 2008, 3:03 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Well, there is no philisophical way to prove anything.
Yes, epistemology HAS NO EXISTENCE!! !! I simply mean that the Is-Ought problem devastates any attempts at figuring out good and evil.
Quote:
Philosophy is all about seemingness, even thought its aim is truth.
And it is dangerous to isolate the manmade construct "philosophy" from
all other logical thought, and thus to act as if philosophy alone can give us the answers to life.
It's fun to think it can, though.
And it is dangerous to isolate the manmade construct "philosophy" from
all other logical thought, and thus to act as if philosophy alone can give us the answers to life.
It's fun to think it can, though.
Philosophy is all about the logical pursuit of knowledge. Frankly, it is dangerous to isolate philosophy from all other logical thought because philosophy is at its core logical thought. The only real differences are intensity and application. Frankly, Ragtime, philosophy alone is what can give us the answers to life in a manner communicable, explicable, and defensible to others. Revelations typically miss one or more of those categories, and 2 out of the 3 major schools of apologetics, presuppositional and classical, are philosophy with the 3rd, evidential, not being so much so due to its empirically oriented basis.
05 Apr 2008, 3:34 am
Ragtime wrote:
gekitsu wrote:
im not against evil as something very real - im against the notion of "real" as referring to an independent reality.
You're more fascinated with philosophy than I am, that's for sure.
See, to me, everything you're saying is mere musings.
But to the philosophy student, musings are golden.
My best friend of 10 years was a philosophy major, and loved this kind of thinking.
good spotting there.
im a philosophy major.
but yeah... you answered what my point is with the next post you made: a desire for accuracy.
and there absolutely are ways to philosophically prove things - its just that philosophy is not one clear-cut method as empirical science is. hence, what is an argument that closes the case for one, doesnt need to do so for another person. quite evident in this thread, isnt it?
06 Apr 2008, 4:17 pm
