the tyranny of religion within democracy

Post Reply New Topic

There is a basic misconception that the body is a convenient vehicle for the mind to use as it sees fit. One can only look at the development of the intellect to realize that the mind is a convenient utility developed by the body to protect and increase the survivability of the body and there are many situations where the body manipulates the mind for its purposes. If the mind wanders off into goofy directions it endangers the survivability of the body and the body has its revenge.

They are free to do so, whatever their reasons, just as anyone can deny 1+1=2. People don't need a logical or philosophical reason to disbelieve or believe in something. They may even use a silly tribal or religious myth as an excuse. But in knowledge, science is not philosophical. There is a distinction between what is real and observable and what isn't. The majority of philosophy discusses what might not be real, but is certainly not observable. Science does not do the same.[/quote]


the reason why i ask is because it seems like awesome was trying to discredit science by just saying it was a philosophy...as if it were more disposable or that the information that science brings is of less worth.

Meh, only if one accepts evolutionary theory and thus bodies without minds created bodies with minds. I reject knowledge, therefore nothing is absolutely known and misconceptions are only such within a certain framework.

Meh, everything is disposable and worth is subjective. That is all I really claim, it is not a positive truth but a negation of most knowable truths. I may have simply gone weird.

Anybody who does not accept evolution is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.

Please, my people were quite literally from 'beyond the pale' and we embrace evolution, peace j

You're ignoring most of Latin Amareica, which is VERY religious.

I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase. To state my attitude more clearly, the evidence for evolution is so strong, not only in the history of the development of life but in current changes in organisms to adapt to changing conditions that people who reject evolution are, to my mind, either totally unaware of obvious reality or too absolutely stupid as to be not worth my time or effort in discussion. I classify these people among those gullibles who believe in alien abduction, who stone people as witches, who disbelieve in the moon landing, who follow astrology, who believe in religious miracles. I am aware that there are lots of them and I regard that as unfortunate but I have discovered there is no point in having discussions with them any more than I would try to explain the rules of baseball to a grasshopper.

'beyond the pale'

This term refers to the west of Ireland that was not completely under English rule, and later to the west where the landless congregated. The area known as 'the pale' or fair lands was the south East ans central east along the coast.
Part of my lineage is Irish Catholic, from beyond the pale, bog Irish...
peace j

No, you don't. Trusting a hypothesis is not part of the criteria of finding evidence to support a hypothesis or disproving it. Which is why it is completely irrelevant. You are free to deny what you have in front of you, or to deny that the floor you stand on or the chair you sit on exists. If you do, then you must concede that you will fall. Any other outcome may be considered aparsimonious.



I already explained that, but observations that may have been made in science are not philosophical. You can't really deny that there's a particular amount of carbon in particular rocks on the Earth that might tell you its age. If it has been tested repeatedly by many different scientists, and the results converge, that hardly remains to be philosophy anymore; it becomes an established fact since you can't get a different result that might mean something else. You can't really deny that there's diversity in the species of organisms that live on this planet, or that their genes have something in common. I refuse to accept this as philosophy because it is not a mere speculation; otherwise, you will have to believe that the chair or floor you might be sitting or standing on doesn't exist, or that you don't exist. In which case, you shouldn't even be posting to me.



As an example, if your philosophy is that reality doesn't exist, how do you disprove the existence of the chair or floor you're sitting on?



I am not postulating an absolute truth; only that scientific evidence holds more water than a book written up by some guy that probably meant to cull the masses, and who has no evidence to show that he did know that the Earth was 6000 years old, or that it was flat. I am not going to compare how science assumes reality to be true, since the bible writers might be guilty of the same thing; I am only comparing how they concluded the age of the Earth and its shape.

And if you deny that scientific evidences, which are based on observations are real, what is your definition of "real"?



Then deny that you'll fall if the chair or floor you're sitting/standing on stopped existing.

I used the term as meaning beyond consideration which is the way I had seen it commonly used.

well it's exactly as i pointed out. trying to use semantics to devalue or otherwise try and take away authority from science by downgrading it all to philosophy. which is just using semantics to achieve the definition of the world that he wishes to have...even though that isn't the correct definition of the world.

Trusting a hypothesis however, is necessary for hypothesizing to be beneficial. Actually, one never has to concede anything. Parsimony still doesn't mean correctness.


The observations though still cannot be considered useful without the epistemological framework. Actually, one can deny anything. No, it does not become a fact at all, if all of these scientists are using bad technology or methods then the convergence is meaningless. Scientific fact is tentative, not only that but even with the rock, sometimes techniques of examination have room for error, and even though common statistical deviation is rare, it still can be the truth. As I have been arguing, anything can be denied. It is a speculation, now you may think that its assumptions are the best/most valid, but, it is an epistemological framework that people can accept or reject, the reason why it is so easy for you to accept is because you live in a world that tends to accept it. The chair or floor I sit on might not exist though, however, science goes deeper than plain fact and into theory, it uses inductive reasoning to take the facts and make them into something usable. Inductive reasoning can also be questioned because there is no reason to assume that the future will be like the past, the only way to assume that is to assume inductive reasoning which begs the question. This induction can ultimately be assumed as flawed and thus make science flawed from certain perspectives.

Why do I have to disprove it. If reality does not exist then I don't assume a chair in the first place. Reality is the assumption, not non-reality because non-reality is a statement of no knowledge. Are you assuming that I am making statements of knowledge?


Why? Because you like the inductive reasoning of science? In both cases we assume knowledge where knowledge cannot be absolutely proven. Like I said, meta-epistemology cannot be done because all meta-epistemology must assume the truth of its own system of thought.

Real? The truth. If we are plugged into the matrix then our scientific conclusions on the world aren't really real. If our world was created 5 minutes ago then our conclusions may not be real. I am not saying that people cannot be scientists or that scientists don't deserve their pay or anything of that nature, but, frankly, I just dislike truths so I make all things tentative.

Sure, I can deny that. I just stop assuming gravity exists and that is the conclusion one reaches. Who knows, gravity might stop existing 5 minutes later? Hasn't happened yet but that doesn't mean it can't.

Semantics? Skepticism. Well, I want to take authority away from all things at this moment. I am not defining the world at all, I am undefining the world. Definition is a statement of truth, I am negating all truths as speculative, no matter what their source is. Heck, who says that the definition of the world I would want is the one I am giving it?

what you're doing isn't skepticism. it's bad word gymnastics....or semantics.


"science is a philosophy." is a statement of someone looking to abuse semantics. unless you have some critical flaw in the scientific method to point out, you have no reason to even start on such a case other than to try and achieve your own means through word play. i'm done here.

If a philosophy can't be explained in plain English (or plain any other language), it isn't much of a philosophy.

Pandora speaks wisely!

peace j