 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)Roger Wilco ...and 301 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cre-gay-tionists |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the problem is, though, that creationists used to get NO attention from the scientific community, and this allowed them to build up a little fanbase while writing scientists off as arrogant and ignorant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't understand why people need science to justify their faith in god. If their belief is so strong why can't they just say "God is beyond science, and exists outside of our known universe, so whatever science wants to explore that's fine by us." Proof denies faith, as the saying goes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Muslims although they tend to live true to the quran, they also recognise that the book was written before there was a good understanding of science. On the whole it is a small group of christians who unfortunatly have way too much influence in the United States that are all for this jaundiced way of thinking. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
spot on. swears: because they take the bible/whatever literally bwecause they are mindless robots, and they cant comprehend such a thing. IDiots ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ive spoken to loads of muslims who take the quran stuff extremely literally (even openly talking about killing gays). if science contradicts the quran, then science is wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you need to moderate your hate of religious people and your blind belief in the natural sciences. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"ive spoken to loads of muslims who take the quran stuff extremely literally (even openly talking about killing gays)" Cool, where do I sign up? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that last post was based on real experience. i can give links to forum discussions. i dont hate religion, i hate literalist religion that ignores scientific discoveries. i have nothing against open progressive muslims (or whatever religion). only ones that stand in the face of science and say "bollocks! my old book is right and that is wrong!" and i dont have "blind belief in natural sciences" - i accept and accomodate for evidence. thats all there is to it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Tolerance let the ignorance spread I know, but these arguments won't convince anybody. People intimidated by the present complicated world will flock to the group sympathetic with their fears, not the one that's right. On the other hand, I guess it's better to crush the roach when it's still small, HAHA. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We need the radicals like Ezkerraldean. They do the dirty job for us and focus the hatred of the other side. If there is a mad ID supprter on this board, it is Ezkerraldean who will die in the first place. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And you need to moderate your spiteful contrariness. Any standard of judgement strict enough to reject methodological naturalism and evolution would have you reject virtually everything else by a much wider margin. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
www.gawaher.com - islamic forum graced with such phrases as "Is It Right To Beat And Dis-own Your Gay Children?" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how do you decide which evidence to accept? all scientific evidence is highly biased. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think your critisism of the Islamic faith is totally....... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
RACIST!!!1!! That's it, I dropped the "R" bomb! Oh yeah! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Bloody Hell, here goes, hold on! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, I'm pretty skeptical towards anything, but I wouldn't put science in any special position (in other words, I'm not neither more or less skeptical towards it than anything else). why do you put science in such a special position? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in what way is scientific evidence biased? and i accept it all. i dont like the idea of the big bang theory, but i see evidence that it occured (and can prove it myself given some redshift figures) and so conclude that it did occur. swears: im not fucking racist! im literal-religion-ist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Have you heard about ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know, I know, just kidding. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is that all that string stuff? i dont know much about all that. must look into it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
any number of scientific theories can explain the same set of data; they may agree on the data and while still being able to explain all the data and predict new situations, they can still have completely different interpretations of the data. If you only accept the data, however, you don't have anything but the observations. the raw data provided for the big bang theory can be accounted for in a million different ways.. how do you choose which one you believe? how do you believe both einstein and string theory? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i "believe" (although i think that is the wrong word) theories that are based on several seperate sets of evidence. e.g. evolution is based on fossil evidence, embryology, molecular clock analysis, biogeography, vestigial structures and morphological similarities. evolution explains all of these, therefore i accept it with the big bang: the evidence: galaxies are travelling faster, the further away they are from us. i am unaware of any possible explanation other than the universe is expanding. with cosmology i do not know, i know jack shit about string theory and i am not informed enough to talk about it in depth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's related... the interesting point is it posits something natural outside / beyond our spacetime. Creationist arguments concerning the big bang are well out of date - existence looks to be getting a lot more complex than an expanding singularity like a firecracker with the fuse lit by a deity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, believe is exactly the right word; scientific beliefs are beliefs on par with anything else and as in religion the leap of faith is required (that leap of faith part I have to credit to Kuhn) on behalf of whoever subscribes to it. and the rest of your post I already answered to in saying that "any scientific theory can fully explain any set of data" ("any" being the key word). with the big bang, for instance, one of the easier alternatives is that there were several small bangs and not just one large. another is that the universe on the super-macro scale is, like some people believe they are observing in microphysics, moving outside of the regular laws of causality; push an object in one direction and it may move in the completely opposite direction (I do not really believe most of the the "observations" anyone has done in microphysics are even close to resembling anything in the real world, though). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what does science have to say about the placebo effect? science is a process of systematic investigation, and there are limitations. scientific materialists are sometimes the most strident of the fundamentalists. i think we should still be prepared to see our understanding of reality turned upside down. in the meantime, eat drink and be merry... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i havent really followed any universe-origin-cosmology-stuff past the CBE and the redshifts i learnt about for A-level physics. i should catch up on all this shit. creationist people always associate the big bang with evolution, which is totally wrong and also extremely funny |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Who's to say what's right or wrong these days what with all our modern ideas... and products! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dont know what science says about the placebo effect! but to my knowledge there have been tests at stuff as extreme as placebo brain surgery and that there have been positive results, but not as strong as giving proper drugs etc. the placebo effect isnt outside science in any way, but i doubt its actual mechanism is fully understood |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's the point, there is no existing theory to explain the mechanism of the effect. while i work in science and think that systematic scientific inquiry is among the most important developments in human history, there are tremendous limitations and biases that influence the process. out of time for now, though... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what limitations or biases?!?! its just that the placebo effect doesnt fit any current theory ( i assume) and if anyone is ever bothered to do a proper investigation into it, they would come up with a theory to explain it. its a neurology thing i guess. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nope, sorry, no natural science can explain psychology; neurology will stop at having identified the processes, and that is not the same as explaining. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What is the difference between explaining something and explaining the processes by which it occurs? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, limitations and biases: natural sciences hit the wall when they try explaining psychology, social behaviour, meaning, ethics, emotions, what the world is, etc the biases are each disciplines own assumptions and outlook on the world; their paradigm. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're not explaining the processes by which it occurs, you're listing them. There's a huge difference; you don't understand what pain is by saying "It is the firing of c-fibres." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
psychology and social sciences - in what way aren't they natural sciences? i dont see any distinction. "meaning", ethics and emotions - in what way are they not part of psychology or social science? what the world is - thats me. thats science. thats geology |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think the term "explain" is far to general. Just like evolution, because we cannot "explain" every mechanism doesn't mean it didn't happen. We can't "explain" how gravity works but we can prove it's existence by scientific method. i guess what i'm getting at is the value of an explaination is really quite objective. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Qualia such as pain are epiphenomena of neurology. The self is an illusion. Do some meditation, buddy. Also, note that supporting the proposal that consciousness is fundamentally different than other processes and therefore inexplicable paradoxically requires the very explanation of consciousness you say we're lacking. How else could you justify that it's fundamentally different and inexplicable? It's a self-defeating position. Either admit that you don't understand it well enough to make sweeping statements like that, or cough up the explanation you'd like to avoid. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DM: I there was no connection between neurology and psychology, we wouldn't take drugs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the natural sciences deal with physical causal relations the social sciences deal with social phenomena such as.. well, I'm not too clear on the social sciences, but it's economy and stuff I think. psychology has two versions, one is clinical and the other is theoretical, and they both deal in the inner workings of the mind which can't be reduced to any physical state. meaning and ethics are things within philosophy which are of such a character that they neither can't be reduced to physical phenomena (as with many other fields within philosophy); they just don't exist physically and can't be found even with the best electron microscope or cloud chamber. emotions are not really something you can catch under any of the established sciences, and I doubt it's possible for anything ever to catch them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
pain isn't a qualia, a qualia is something associated with pain; it is a type of pain, and any pain has a sort of qualia attached to it. that goes for many other things too. reduce sitting in your favorite chair to neurons, yeah right. and there's nothing self-defeating about my position; I'm just excluding one possibility which is something we always do without knowing about all the possibilities and least of all about which one is the correct one. and there's nothing illusory about a self even if you believe it to be physical processes; do the physical processes fool themselves at the same time as they don't exist? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in the sense that the brain is a nerve-centre, it's perfectly reasonable (though it isn't reasonable to do drugs). even though the mind isn't reduceable to the brain, the brain is what controls the physical body which is the external part of the mind.. in the same way as bypassing a security camera with a different video feed and then the guy in the control room is fooled, your perception can be fooled, thus making your judgement worse. note that the first thing is an analogy and not a homonuculi argument; don't mistake the picture for the thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why exclude the possibility that consciousness is explicable? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Meh, we just don't see the connection yet. Maybe we will nevr see it, but I believe that even feelings can be brought down to electrical patters. Even sitting in your favourite chair.This is just a belief though, I can agree with that. But in being a belief it's not in any way worse than claiming the opposite. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
an explanation is something that will lead you to understand what you are asking about. this is different from a listing of things; if you asked me why I shot the burglars that broke into my house, "some chemicals reacted creating an electrical charge in neurons [a,b,c,etc] which then travelled along nerve path [a,b,c,etc] down my arm to my finger which was placed on the trigger," wouldn't be an appropriate answer and it definately wouldn't lead you to understand why I shot them.. maybe how, but not why. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm excluding that it is reducable to physical reactions. for the exact same reason as I just mentioned; neuroscience goes as far as listing what happens, but in order to know what process they just listed, they need to ask the person what he just thought. After that, they may be able to re-identify the process, but where in this is the why? Why do we think? Why did he decide to do A? The answer to neither would be [repeat tedious example of causal chain in nerves]. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Why do we think?" Because we inherited that ability from our ancestors, because it conferred a competitive advantage upon them that enabled them to survive and procreate. "Why did he decide to do A?" Because of previous physical states in his brain. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And maybe, just maybe, in time they will be able to invoke thoughts by tempering with the brain. Claiming that they won't is also only a belief. You can't and you don't know they won't. Are you looking for a metaphysical answer? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
due to time limitations, i'll stick to the biggest. first, your expectations can change the outcome of any experience or experiment, even a controlled experiment. data are not necessarily meaningful unless they are interpreted. the process of interpretation involves goals, like making money, helping people, esteem of one's collegues, meeting the demands of politics, compatibility with prevailing models etc. maybe science *should* be objective, but it isn't and can never be as long as human beings are running the show. again, i work in scientific research and don't mean to say that scientific inquiry is pointless or useless. it is not, however, objective and not the application of pure reason that some might wish it would be. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
