Religion and Aspergers

Post Reply New Topic

You’re making a negative assumption about a word. Dogma is something that is taken as fact WITHOUT QUESTION. In the Catholic Church, the Immaculate Conception is simply not up for debate. In science, the scientific method as a guiding principle is simply not up for debate. Periodt. If labeling something as dogma when it really is happens to offend you, check your premises.

It’s only a problem when it can be legitimately questioned. I feel that ICofM fails on logical grounds (is it necessary to be born without sin in order to give birth to someone who has no sin?). The scientific method itself is irrational (circular reasoning).

In order to use the scientific method, you must first ASSUME that it possesses the greatest explanatory power. Yet you cannot demonstrate that it even has that power without using the tools of the method itself. That in itself is faulty reasoning. What scientists do is accept the method as self-evident and move on with their day.

If scientists are forced to accept something as axiomatic, by the same standard they must at least accept the possibility that other things might be true even if they cannot be proven or evidenced (what non-circular evidence do you have for the scientific method?).

So the real questions are: which axioms or dogma are actually TRUE? And how would you know whether or not they are true?

You’re making a negative assumption about a word. Dogma is something that is taken as fact WITHOUT QUESTION...

Everything in science is questioned, even the scientific method. I could prove this too (scientists debate about the Anthropic Principle for instance), but here is a statement I want to concentrate on instead:

The scientific method itself is irrational (circular reasoning).

This is quite a claim. Forget everything else I wrote or you wrote, let's just concentrate on this because it seems to be the crux of a lot of your crazy ideas.

Circular reasoning is reasoning that takes what it purports to show as true as an initial given. Of course, that is not a fair technique in showing anything to be true. The the question now is, what do you think science in using the scientific method is assuming to be true before it shows it to be so AngelRho? What? I would be interested in knowing.

You made the claim, back it up with some proof. Or is asking proof some form of unfair circular reasoning? I hope you can try, because it should be interesting seeing how you square the circle on this one.

Or maybe I should just let you have the crazy last words???
It is futile trying to talk sense to nonsensical people after all.

You’re making a negative assumption about a word. Dogma is something that is taken as fact WITHOUT QUESTION...

Everything in science is questioned, even the scientific method. I could prove this too (scientists debate about the Anthropic Principle for instance), but here is a statement I want to concentrate on instead:

The scientific method itself is irrational (circular reasoning).

This is quite a claim. Forget everything else I wrote or you wrote, let's just concentrate on this because it seems to be the crux of a lot of your crazy ideas.

Circular reasoning is reasoning that takes what it purports to show as true as an initial given. Of course, that is not a fair technique in showing anything to be true. The the question now is, what do you think science in using the scientific method is assuming to be true before it shows it to be so AngelRho? What? I would be interested in knowing.

You made the claim, back it up with some proof. Or is asking proof some form of unfair circular reasoning? I hope you can try, because it should be interesting seeing how you square the circle on this one.

Or maybe I should just let you have the crazy last words???
It is futile trying to talk sense to nonsensical people after all.

Explain to me how you would go about testing the scientific method.

Explain to me how you would go about testing the scientific method.

Oh, that is easy. You use it and see if it produces fruitful outcomes. It has, and it most likely by all accounts, will continue to do so. The test is infinite though, so you can not stop testing, because one day maybe we all wake up in some new strange world where a new method is needed. I am not being facetious at all here.

That is not circular reasoning in the above because I have not used what I assumed true, to prove what I was trying to show to be the case.

What makes you so sure it produces fruitful outcomes? What tools do you use to test the scientific method?

The Scientific Method was used to produce the Internet, the terminal you are looking at and the computer it is connected to.

The Scientific method is predictive, in that a principle that stated in 1915 that gravity refracts light was proven to be valid in 1919.

The Scientific Method is self-correcting, in that when any model representing our understanding of reality is proven to be invalid -- geocentrism, for example -- it is simply discarded when a more accurate model is proven to be valid.

The Scientific Method is self-consistent, in that it has been proven that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all frames of reference, and that it does not change with time or distance.

I just don't understand why anyone would presume some kind of moral superiority for believing in any system that simply cannot be as productive, as predictive, as self-correcting, or as self-consistent as the Scientific Method.

Fnord++

(Oh yeah, someone really needs to write it)

QED.

Fnord, you haven’t answered my question. What I’m asking is this: how do you know all of that? You’ve made a list of things the scientific method has supposedly produced. That’s not what I’m looking for. What tools do you use to know any of that stuff?

Still waiting for you to answer my question. How do you know anything about the scientific method? Fnord copy/pasted some pretty words about it, but that’s not what I’m asking. I believe that I’m typing this out on an iPhone, which according to Fnord proved that there is this thing called Scientific Method. So according to Fnord, I’m holding the scientific method in my hands right now, if I understand Fnord correctly.

So let’s look at the logic: I’m holding an iPhone, therefore Scientific Method. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me there are a number of logical steps missing. How do you make the leap from “iPhone?” to “aha! Scientific Method!! !”?

Also, on a more basic level—how do I even know I’m holding anything, much less an iPhone? How do I, or anyone else for that matter, differentiate between what seems to be and what is, between what is delusional and what’s real? Simply calling on the Scientific Method will not do unless I have an objective, non-circular means of evaluating it. Along with that, one must ASSUME that the mind/brain is working sufficiently enough to understand it at all. And finally, is there a superior means of understanding our world beyond The Method? Is it even possible, and how would we use that (if we even can) to assess the actual virtue of The Method?

As it stands, and this is my main point, all you have is “The Scientific Method because Scientific Method.” Because reasons. “Because reasons” is insufficient for ANY argument. “Because reasons” is why the Blessed Virgin was born immaculate without sin and remained a virgin for life. All you’re doing by not answering how precisely one can know anything about anything, including (but not limited to) The Method, is tacitly acknowledging The Method as the dogma it is, not essentially different from Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin.

And no, my purpose isn’t to upset Catholics, either. I simply happen to not be Catholic. I don’t buy into much dogma. Certain things are NOT to be questioned, or rather they are sufficiently self-evident. I take absolutely no issue with that, but I simply disagree with my Catholic friends as to what can be questioned and what cannot. The Scientific Method, also, must be accepted even though it cannot be reasonably proven.

@Fnord: to clarify—I’m not opposed to the scientific method. I’m not at all denying anything you wrote, and I’m sure I’ve seen almost that exact same thing worded exactly or near-exactly the way you wrote it. I’m not denying that it has the most explanatory power of any materialistic system we have. Predictability? Fine. Self-consistent? Sure. Self-correcting? That’s great! I wholeheartedly believe in a physical, objective measurable reality. I believe that virtue and morality can be inferred from that same reality. I haven’t yet even invoked God as the source of virtue and morality. That would be the next logical step, but it’s beside the point at the moment. The point is whether The Method ranks as dogma. Without external verification using tools NOT employed by The Method, you cannot support that Method on logical grounds because of question-begging. You do better simply accepting The Method for what it is and simply not worrying about the rest. As far as I’m aware, that’s pretty much what every scientist does, anyway.

For a contemporary correction, we'd need to replace religion with media (ie social media, mainstream media, movies and television) and then we'd have it right. Media has replaced religion in this regard.

Still waiting for you to answer my question.

I guess you will be waiting forever. Some times when people say they don't believe you it is on them, not on you. No offense, but I am going to stop wasting my time with your thoughts because I no longer find you to be a thinker with any credibility or rigor. Thank you for your time.

For a contemporary correction, we'd need to replace religion with media (ie social media, mainstream media, movies and television) and then we'd have it right. Media has replaced religion in this regard.

Fascinating concept Magna. Does it completely fit though? Can you elaborate? Does this fit in with Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, or is this more something else??? I mean, you have Marx, who is not my favorite of the Classical Philosophers, but at least he put ideas expressing class conflict into the modern lexicon.

And yet you aren’t thinking, certainly not with any rigor, about what I’ve said. That makes you either a coward or a hypocrite. Which is it?

Unless...you actually agree with me. What is it with people that in online discussions they can’t concede even the tiniest of points? I’ve gone into greater depth than the topic deserves, but the question is simple. What tools does one use to verify the Scientific Method? The senses? The Method itself? The rational mind? God? Peer review? Extra-sensory perception?

At least I can actually THINK clearly about the topic and not have to worry about my own biases. It’s not that I lack biases or preferences. It’s just that I can look past them and draw reasonable conclusions. Scientists accept the method because of it’s explanatory power. They never question the method itself. They may question data, methods/instruments used in gathering data, or they may need to tweak the Method, but they still use it. There may be a margin of error, but that’s all part of the Method. Any time you accept something without question, that’s dogma.

"The Method" is accepted because it works. If a better method is ever discovered or developed, the older method will be discarded, and the new method put into general practice.

Sorta like when the Scientific Method usurped and replaced religious dogma back in the early 16th century.

Come up with something more effective and efficient than the Scientific Method -- something that actually works -- instead of just criticizing it, and maybe science-minded people will begin to respect your point-of-view.

I'm not criticizing "The Method." I'm criticizing the idea that "The Method" is NOT dogma. I'm not even criticizing dogma as a whole. I think there ARE things that are self-evident and beyond question. If something can logically be self-evident and beyond question AND true, there's nothing wrong with it. Gravity, as an example, is considered a law because, among other reasons, it is self-evident and true. Nobody has a panic attack worrying over gravity when they wake up every day, right? I mean, for most people? So trying to question the law of Gravity is really pointless. Gravitation, on the other hand, is not so cut and dry. We believe, through what we've observed so far and in the simplest terms, is that gravitation is a product of mass. Gravitation could possibly be caused by something else, but without better information theories of gravitation relative to mass are the best we have to go on. So while gravity exists as an established tenet, gravitation does not. As far as I'm aware, this isn't something scientists seem to have a problem with.

I'm also trying to point out the logical failures of dogma and axioms. How do you prove "The Method" beyond "The Method" itself? Logically, it's absurd. First of all, when you point out what "The Method" has produced, you're still pointing back to The Method. Second, what method are you using to show that The Method produced certain things? Do I have to see, hear, feel, smell, taste, or otherwise observe SOMETHING to see that The Method has produced something? Ok, but the problem is that all observational methods are a part of The Method, which renders The Method as irrational question-begging (because you are assuming The Method when you use The Method). Third, even if you succeeded in verifying The Method itself externally, you now have the problem of your method of verification not being scientific and thus lacking in credibility in the scientific community. "It just works" isn't enough, logically speaking, to accept anything on simple, blind faith. "It just works" is a low standard for science. However, "It just works" might be enough for some people to substantiate their faith in something. It doesn't mean your conclusions are necessarily wrong. It means that you are forced to accept compromised logic as ad hoc truth. In order to productively utilize any system, reasonable doubt has to be regarded as meaningless. For example, in the Western court system, "beyond reasonable doubt" sounds good, but what does "reasonable" even mean? That's the struggle, whether you're talking science, religion, law, philosophy... Heck, what about philosophy? Philosophy depends on logic. A=A, excluded middle, etc. How do you prove logic without using logic? Well...you DON'T. Philosophers aren't particularly concerned about it. You might make the claim that postmoderns reject any truth claims and even the very necessity of logic. But the problem with that is how postmoderns even came to THAT conclusion. Faulty logic is still logic. It's still a process, or a thought-pattern, is either inductive or deductive, is syllogistic, is premise-based, etc.

Is there a logically possible way around that without accepting compromised logic and question-begging assumptions?

One last thing: Do you honestly think I CARE if anyone else respects my point-of-view? I'm here for my own reasons. I don't NEED anyone else's acceptance.