Personal Stories about Your Encounter with God!

Post Reply New Topic

I could not get the link you provided to work. Although I do agree that there have been studies done on the benefits of marijuana, just not by the U.S. government after they conducted a couple of studies which showed that marijuana is beneficial to cancer patients. These studies were done years ago, and the findings surpressed. After seeing that marijuana is beneficial they could no longer fund studies that contradicts federal law, otherwise they would have to change the law, or be called hypocrites.

I am not familiar with studies by other governments, or by private companies/donors. I am not familiar with how those systems work, so I am unable to say if they are biased or not. I am familiar however with the way that 'this' government funds scientific studies and those who receive such funds, thus I can say with confidence that there is no bias, and there is complete objectivity. Certainly not 100% (I say this as those doing studies, not in the studies, i.e, perhaps 99 out of a 100 studies are objective, not there is 99% objectivity in each study), because there are always outliers in any field of human nature, but at a percentage high enough where a statement saying that bias exists in these studies is definitely wrong.

I was saying that studies on the harmful effects of religion will never be funded. There are many many studies on the benefits of religion, and there will continue to be more. But proving religion is harmful? The government will never fund such a study.

Also, I don't believe that the concept of objectivity has been refuted at all. The system you are describing is outside of space and time, and outside of any type of intelligent being for that is the only possible objectivity you are tallking about. Even God would have a point of view. Your thinking lies along the lines of Kant's "thing in itself". Something that lies outside of human understanding, and even Gods understanding.

There are many different theories of objectivity, and you are using the theories of different types of objectivity to combat each other, a position that is untenable. Is there absolute objectivity? I.e. the "thing in itself"? There is no way for a human to ever know that, the answer lies outside of space and time, and what it is possible for a human to experience. Is there objectivity in scientific standards according to the structure of this world? Yes. And that is what we are talking about here. Can one be used to combat the other? No, it would be like a blind man arguing that there is no such thing as sight to a man who can see.

Lots of peoples books have been burned it's not a good thing but this was thwe McCarthy era they burned lots of stuff. This guy was out there though Cloud busters to make rain and Orgone boxes to collect orgone energy .

I am, as long as you're talking about Anton LaVey Satanism, there was this really nice guy on John Safran vs God, he attacked the resident Catholic less than the host did (Which is to say that the Satanist didn't attack him at all) also there is this great website made by a Female American Satanist (Though it isn't exactly bright and cheerful ) anyway point is they're great people, just stop and talk to a few of them and make sure they know who LaVey is.

.

i know, i was making the point to emp that science can be dogmatic nd inquisitional when it wants to.



perhaps, although his earlier work, when he was one of freuds inner circle and just after his split with freud, is excellent. "character analysis" is still a respected text among psychoanalytical circles, and "the mass psychology of fascism" is a classic, and is very relevent to the state western nations now find themselves in. much of his theories on sexual politics is also very interesting.
and as for orgone energy, the idea of this type of force has existed in one form or another throughout history. prana rays, chi, qi, baraka, bio-energy, vital force, energy fields, animal magnetism etc. reich was different only in that he tried to put it in a scientific framework.
oh, and rain can be artificially induced, as china has recently done over beijing using silver iodide.

There are objectivist arguments but those arguments continue on in a philosophical debate that can never be resolved. We can't get outside our subjective impressions to test our knowledge of objective reality. We can assume that objective reality exists, if we choose, but we can never test that hypothesis. The reason we can never KNOW objective reality is because we cannot get outside our subjective impressions. The best that we can do, and it often seems useful to do this, is to subjectively agree on certain standards for empirical findings, but that doesn't solve the problem that we can't get outside our subjective impressions not even when we all subjectively agree. Physics are starting to overturn our entire scientific paradigm and make the debate even more interesting than it already is.

If YOU can solve the debate as to whether objectivity exists or not I'd love to hear it because that puts you one up on Einstein.

sure I've heard of that but building metal lined wood boxes for people to sit in is a little wacky especially if your selling them without scientific proof this is what got him in trouble with the FDA and the contempt of court charge that lead to his arrest.
Yes I've read about silver iodide but its ussally put in the clouds from planes and there is debate over how well it works there are companies in the US that do it now they say it prolongs rain that is aready falling or about to fall.

EDIT: double post

Last edited by jonathan79 on 23 May 2006, 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You have simply restated my argument in different words which agree with me. I cannot see the point of these statements. You are trying to disagree with me by agreeing with me(wtf?!?), which also makes it so that you are refuting your earlier objectivist argument with this one. You are conveniently taking different positions as to try to refute what I am saying, but you are only refuting yourself in the process.




Yes, I agree it is the best we can do, and that is all science claims to be, which is a best guess based on the information available in this world until this point in time, to do anymore would be to predict the future (so do not argue here that it is only a best guess). You are using the word 'subjective' here in a very tricky manner. While yes it is true that humans have a 'subjective' impression of the world, it is impossible to get outside of this (as you yourself earlier stated) which makes only one reality possible for the human to experience. This one reality that we experience can be objectively assessed according to the standards of what it is possible to experience, and the agreements on those experiences which we have developed until now. You are trying to use absolute objectivity as a refutation of human objectivity, which cannot be done.

In other words, you are trying to compare this one reality that humanity can experience to different realities that we cannot experience. This is only raising doubts where none can be raised. This is also missing the target of your argument which was that there is no objectivity in this world, by arguing that we cannot have objectivity in this world because there are other possible worlds (worlds which you admit we can never know of or experience) which might exist (which you also agree that even if they did we could never experience them, thus making your comparison argument collapse on itself). You skillfully intergrate the two arguments into the same sentence, but that only provides the grounds for exposing it.



No, it doesnt. But again, you are using two different theories on objectivity to combat each other. You are trying to sneak in a premise which has nothing to do with the original argument you presented to try and back up a different argument that you have created in order to refute an argument that I have presented. You logic is wavering with each new position you create.



Yes, physics is. However by stating this, you are agreeing that science is only making a best guess "based on the information available in this world until this point in time." As new information is gathered and agreed upon, the information available changes, and so do the theories that form as a consequence of this information. I also find it strange that you bash science, yet conveniently cite it as a source when trying to make a point. A point which refutes the initial objection you raised about science in the first place which started this whole debate.




You yourself claim to do so with your statement: "First of all, objectivity as a concept has been well refuted." Which also happens to contradict this statement that you also made, "There are objectivist arguments but those arguments continue on in a philosophical debate that can never be resolved". The statment, "Physics are starting to overturn our entire scientific paradigm and make the debate even more interesting than it already is" also contradicts your 'objectivity as a concept' statement because physics is based on human objectivity.

jonathan, I'm not going to continue to argue with you about objectivity. It's a classical philosphical debate that no one has yet resolved. I have one last question for you. Where on earth do you get these statistics that 99% of all university studies are objective?

reich claimed to have proved his orgone theories, and that the accumulators worked. i'm not saying i believe his later theories or not, but in my opinion ther was a witch hunt against him. the fbi had already investigate him to pin links to communism, even though in several of his books he refered to communism as red fascism and completely denounced it. but regardless, i only mentioned reich to make a point to emp, and i see he still hasn't replied... there are many others in the fringes of the scientific community who have been the victims of similar witch hunts.

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh!! !! !???! !! !! !....Then why take the position that ""First of all, objectivity as a concept has been well refuted." in order to attack science? Your whole attack on science was based on that claim. That was what I was debating. And further more, why attempt to rebut my rebuttal with the same attack if that wasn't your position in the first place????? If you don't want to debate, thats perfectly fine, but don't start one, then back out when your position gets exposed, on an excuse the contradicts the claim you made which was the foundation of your attack on science.

And if you read my post, I was using the 99% thing as an example, not a fact. Hence the word "perhaps" after the 'for example' in my statement stating that it was "for example".

If you want to debate, thats fine. But I'm afraid you'll have to answer my objections before I answer any more of yours.

This is the best thread ever! How did ya'll get from a broken vacuum cleaner to a debate about objectivity? This is great.

I find the thread a little scary. I started off by saying that the nun and the athiest have much in common. The same principles that uphold a fanatical belief in individualism, pure objectivity, and post-industrial capitalism are the same principles that are involved in religious fanaticism. Ultimately all of these beliefs are part of an ideology that our individual human will can transcend itself to reach a higher state or truth.

One of the classic problems of philosophy is that we can never know an objective reality because we can only ever judge by subjective experience, even if we all agree subjectively. Sometimes it is useful to test the validity of phenomena with empirical science, but this does not resolve the problem that all of our perceptions our subjective. Knowledge is constructed out of our perceptions and is adaptive, an objective and value-free objectivity doesn't exist.

I can't continue to argue with jonathan because I cannot follow his argument. I don't understand much of what he has written in his posts.

The author of this article used a very poor example to "prove" scientific dogma. The objection most scientists have to I.D. isn't that they don't welcome debate over facts, it's that creationists try to disprove evolution with pure gibberish.

I do not find this thread scary at all, in fact I think this is exactly what should be going on in all regions of acadamia. Debate is the only way to discuss different points of view. What is scary is when a person takes a position blindly, without having the logic to back up their claim, and refuses all challenges to their position.

A belief is only fanatical if one refuses to change their position in the face of superior logic or evidence. I will gladly change my position if you are able to point out flaws in my logic, but you have not, yet you still cling to you position and claim my position is wrong. I'm afraid that this puts you, and you alone in the camp of fanatical beliefs. This is exactly the point that emp was making on the difference between science and religion. The true scientist or philosopher will always revise their position in the face of a better argument, the religious person will not. The principles behind the scientist and believer are quite different, and I believe that you have demonstrated this difference quite effectively.

It appears that your unwillingness to change your position in the face of a better argument has colored your world as to appear that the scientist is dogmatic, when in reality it is your own dogma that creates this perception of the world. It is just like a person who always rejects invitations to go out, then wonders why no one invites them out anymore, which in turn makes them form a perception that no one likes them, which is just not true (speaking from personal experience here). Their own actions cause their perception of the world. You reject better arguments against your position, then wonder why the other person will not change their position, which in turn makes you form a perception that the other person is fanatical. Your own actions cause your perception that science is fanatical, when this is just not true.

Your unwillingness to change your position in the face of a better argument makes it seem like it is the other person is fanatical, when in fact they are not. A better argument is not dogmatic or fanatical, it is only a better argument. What is dogmatic is a flawed position that will not be abandoned. There is a difference here.

Also, how can you disagree with my position if you don't understand it? Your stance now is, "I have no idea what you are saying, but you are wrong". Now, THAT is fanatacism.

My point is posting was not to debate but to point out that there are other valid perspectives other than the objectivist view. In fact, the objectivist view is out of favor with most academics. Most academics take a constructivist view. Geez, I didn't expect to get jumped by an Ayn Rand groupie. There is one thing I assume with "certainty" and that is that if you and I were in a philosophy 101 class and our posts were submitted as a paper on this subject, I would get an "F" for not responding to every objectivist argument I could possibly think of, and you would get an "F" just for being incoherent.