Intellectual integrity

[o_mlly]

I was taught to question everything...and keep what proves good and true.

Were you also taught that science has never proved anything as true?

 

[Neogaia777]

Terrif. You dont even know what you've claimed.

I told you exactly, but you just went right back to saying that I didnt, or I wasn't saying (or repeating) exactly what I was claiming.

Dodging and then thrashing about like a foul-
hooked alligator truing to bite something, anything,

The pot always calls the kettle black.

You should look in the mirror.

Because most of your posts are just meaningless, and I don't even know why you are even wasting everyone else's time with them, etc. You just resort to personal attacks, when you know you can't say or do anything else, etc, which is just meaningless, and a bit childish, etc, and is most often just a reflection of what you are seeing in your own mirror most of the time, etc. And it seems to be very, very obvious to everyone else on here except for you and you only, etc. So, I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with you, etc.

except provide examples,logic or anything else re
these "breakthroughs'.

I gave some examples.

And how I arrived at them should be obvious with anyone with half a brain, etc.

So much so that I didn't think they required a whole lot of explaining, etc.

Even though I still did try to do that a little bit though, for those that might have required further clarification in what I was saying, etc.

You just ignore all of it though, and just resort to things that I consider to be beneath me, so I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with you trying to explain, etc.

If you read the slightly amended post to which you
responded you will note i clarified that while you identified wit it, it's not even about you, but a way of thinking and style of posting in general.

You responded to a post that was directed at me, and repeated the things that were said in it about me, etc. So it wasn't just me identifying with it, but you trying to get on board with someone else about something that was directed at me, etc. It's very, very obvious you were talking about me, etc. Now it might not have been just only me, but it most definitely did include me, etc. Which is why I asked you if you were going to do that with something like that that did include me, to direct your posts directly at me, etc.

Going to be ignoring you from now on, etc.

So have fun, ok.

And it's not because I'm necessarily upset necessarily, but it's because almost all of your posts, are just you resorting to your baser instincts, and your posts being completely without benefit or meaning, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Laodicean60]

I've mentioned intellectual integrity as an essential value in
science.

Wow, this is old.
"In his famous commencement address in 1974 at the California Institute of Technology, physicist Richard Feynman gave an engaging talk that tried to express his understanding of the concept of integrity for science."

Everyone has their personal biases and beliefs, just like Darwinian evolution see underlined.

"a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated … In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."

I could be wrong but were there competing views of evolution from secular scientists or was it only Christians? Do you feel the monkey to man theory should still be taught and why?

 

[Astrid]

Wow, this is old.
"In his famous commencement address in 1974 at the California Institute of Technology, physicist Richard Feynman gave an engaging talk that tried to express his understanding of the concept of integrity for science."

Everyone has their personal biases and beliefs, just like Darwinian evolution see underlined.

"a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated … In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."

I could be wrong but were there competing views of evolution from secular scientists or was it only Christians? Do you feel the monkey to man theory should still be taught and why?

What difference does it make if it's " wow old"?

Tw ,plus two equals four is also old. That has no effect t in the validity.

Everyone having biases is kind of the point.
That, and that people with integrity do their best
to be objective.

There are differing ideas on aspects of evolution.
So?

" Christian" science is an oxymoron. There is no " secular" science.
Chridtian funnies, being proudly incapable of objective assessment of facts, reject all of it for religious reasons.

Educated christiams- except for a few dishonest ones- have no issue with evoluti9n.
Science is science and knows no labels like
" secular" or " christian "

There is no " monkey to man theory".
Nor " secular" science.

You are not asking real questions.

 

[Laodicean60]

" Christian" science is an oxymoron. There is no " secular" science.
Chridtian funnies, being proudly incapable of objective assessment of facts, reject all of it for religious reasons.

You are correct Christian scientist.

Educated christiams- except for a few dishonest ones- have no issue with evoluti9n.

Darwinian evolution? What is your view on the evolution process of mankind?

 

[Niels]

I've mentioned intellectual integrity as an essential value in
science.
It is of course an ideal, and as such is imperfectly realized.
And dishonest people in all walks of life will do the opposite.

I'm suggesting here that it's a value all would do well to strive
for, and presenting this article as food for thought.

Scientific Integrity and the Ethics of 'Utter Honesty'

Honesty is a core scientific virtue, but what does it require of us?

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

This isn't controversial. Whether we're talking about science, medicine, technology, law, or simply dealing with our neighbors, it is important to have integrity. Research is often referenced in subsequent studies. Building on a strong foundation is preferred.

To assume that a religious person has less intellectual integrity compared to somebody who lacks religious faith reveals a bias. Likewise, to assume that somebody who lacks religious faith inherently has more intellectual integrity also reveals a bias.

If you are a scientist who wants to be published, or if you are a reviewer of research, I hope that you are more concerned with the data and methodology than whether or not you agree with the theological worldviews of the individuals involved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I said I could tell you how it could be true within the realm of real possibility, nothing more.

I quoted what you posted - are you disowning that?

And there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says how long one of God's days is, or has to be also, etc.

I asked about your objective reasons for how the bible could be literally true. If you can't see that suggesting Genesis days could be interpreted as thousands of years is neither objective nor literal, there's little point continuing. I was hoping for better.

But, don't worry, I already knew you wouldn't be happy with it, and would find a way to criticize it, as I already know you've already closed mind to it already, or made up your mind already.

If that was what you already thought, and you weren't prepared to accept criticism, it is you who had the closed mind ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let me just ask you this then?

Can you disprove it's being possible?

Yes or No?

It is not possible to disprove vague, ill-defined, and/or non-specific claims. We can only assess their credibility based on the evidence for them or similar claims. The claim itself is not evidence for what is claimed.

The burden of proof is on the claimant (you). Attempting to shift the burden of proof is fallacious.

It seems ironic that the thread topic is intellectual integrity...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Trinity consists of God in the OT, Jesus Christ, and a Heavely Father God that has always been, or always started out as, being greater or higher than them both.

And if you want to know how I reasoned that out, or want to truly know more about that, and aren't just out to waste my time, then ask me, etc.

I did ask you.

Because otherwise, then I'm done talking to you and/or wasting my time with you right now, etc.

But have other people who would truly like to know, etc.

Instead of this bluster, why not just explain your objective reasoning as you said you would?

 

[Neogaia777]

I quoted what you posted - are you disowning that?

And I told you only that it would be completely objectively possible real world possibility, nothing more.

Unless you can show me or quote me when I ever said otherwise?

I asked about your objective reasons for how the bible could be literally true. If you can't see that suggesting Genesis days could be interpreted as thousands of years is neither objective nor literal, there's little point continuing.

A day "IS AS" a thousand years, and a thousand years "IS AS" a day.

I would say that means it is very, very open to interpretation, wouldn't you?

I was hoping for better.

No you weren't. Don't lie.

If that was what you already thought, and you weren't prepared to accept criticism, it is you who had the closed mind ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What your doing isn't criticism, or keeping an open mind, but is flat out rejecting it from even being possible outright.

And I never asked you to believe it as the only possible truth either, but just to keep and open mind.

And not just flat out reject it as not even being able to be even be a possibility outright.

Because that's not being objective, nor is it having or keeping an open mind.

It is not possible to disprove vague, ill-defined, and/or non-specific claims.

Bull. If it isn't possible at all, then it should be able to be easily disproven by some kind of evidence that would easily disprove it from being a possibility.

And I already know you can't do that, so...?

We can only assess their credibility based on the evidence for them or similar claims. The claim itself is not evidence for what is claimed.

Did I say I had evidence? No, I did not. Maybe you need to go back and re-read what I said?

The only reason I am even relpying to you about it, is only because you asked, etc.

Otherwise I might not have said anything at all, etc.

The burden of proof is on the claimant (you). Attempting to shift the burden of proof is fallacious.

Did I say I had proof? No I did not.

Maybe you need to go back and re-read what I said?

The only reason I even replied, or still am replying to you about it, is because you asked, etc.

Otherwise I might not have said anything at all, etc.

But just in case I wasn't clear enough about it, I do not have proof, and I do not have evidence, but it is only a possibility, which was all I promised you.

And the only thing you need to prove a possibility, is it not being able to be disproved as a possibility, etc.

I am not trying to prove it to you.

And, again, the only reason I am even talking about it or ever even mentioned it as a possibility, is only because you asked me, etc.

Otherwise I probably wouldn't have said anything at all, etc.

It seems ironic that the thread topic is intellectual integrity...

Yes, it is, isn't it?

Cause if we are to in any way define that as "intellectual honesty", then I think I defintely have the upper hand right now in that currently, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I did ask you.

I'll have to get back to you about the Trinity issue.

It's getting late here, so after I'm done posting these, I'll probably have to get back on here another time.

But I will only try to tell you what I think about it only a couple of times, and depending on how it is received, will not waste my time trying to talk to you about it anymore after that if it is not well received, etc, but will invest my time elsewhere with posts that take a little bit more work than most of these that I am right now doing before going to bed right now, etc.

Instead of this bluster, why not just explain your objective reasoning as you said you would?

Ok, well we'll have to use something specific as an example, etc.

For example, you took issue with how I was interpreting the length of God's days.

Well, if you mean besides that the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it ever say one of God's days ever has to be the same length of one of our days, etc, I also took "a day IS AS a thousand years, and a thousand years IS AS a day" to mean they could possibly be very much more longer than a literal thousand years, or one of our literal days, etc, and that was a part of my reasoning when it came to the possible length of one of God's days, etc.

And much of my other reasonings about that and all of the other things, centered around not at all contradicting any of the other truths that are currently known in any of the sciences, which also played a big huge major part in a lot of my reasoning, etc.

My reasoning has been objective because it has been neutral while I was working through reasoning it, and has been completely honest about the fact of it/them only being a possibility that cannot be proven as of yet, etc.

I'm one of the most objective people you will ever meet, because my ego is not involved.

Which is more than I can say about the rest of you, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

You also seem to be taking issue a lot with the word "literal", etc?

But the only place I used that word in this entire thread when I was talking about the Bible being true is only in post #34, etc, when I said I could tell/show you how the bible "could possibly be literally true mostly", etc, and other than that, I never mentioned the word literal, even though what I am saying to you is most definitely a way that it could be "possibly literally true mostly", etc.

Because what I am saying about it, or have said about it so far in this thread, still mostly is, etc.

And it pretty much all is actually, except I already knew that some of you might take issue with some things maybe not being exactly literal, like the length of one of God's days for example, etc, but other than that, all of the rest of it still pretty much is still, etc.

And it also depends on your definition of literal, etc.

Which is why I used the words "mostly literal", etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch and others.

About the Trinity.

In Post #52 I said:

The Trinity consists of God in the OT, Jesus Christ, and a Heavely Father God that has always been, or always started out as, being greater or higher than them both.

How I reasoned this.

It began with a knowledge of determinism, and finding out that both Jesus, and God in the OT, were not fully omniscient. And after dwelling on this and pondering this for a while, I also reasoned that Jesus, when referring to a Heavenly Father God, was not talking about God in the OT. And after pondering this for a while, I reasoned that this Heavenly Father God was omniscient because this world/universe was all deterministic, and there was no such thing as free will. And after realizing that, I determined/reasoned that all were caught up in it that were not the Heavenly Father God always, and that Jesus knew this, or found this out, or reasoned this also. And then I began to discover that all this that I was coming to, or discovering, was in God's and Jesus Word/words all over the place. I also began to think/reason that we had God in three different forms. One in the flesh, one of spirit, and the Heavenly Father God, who's form is unknown. I also began to reason/think that God in the OT was the God that was (the) Spirit, or was God in and on the level of spirit form. I also began to reason that the reason for God in the OT and Jesus, was to show us God the Heavenly Father in a way that we could relate, or could understand Him, that might be or might have been, the one and only limitation of Him.

Ask me specific questions if you want to know more.

If this is not received well here, then I will probably stop discussing it here, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

I quoted what you posted - are you disowning that?


I asked about your objective reasons for how the bible could be literally true. If you can't see that suggesting Genesis days could be interpreted as thousands of years is neither objective nor literal, there's little point continuing. I was hoping for better.


If that was what you already thought, and you weren't prepared to accept criticism, it is you who had the closed mind ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


It is not possible to disprove vague, ill-defined, and/or non-specific claims. We can only assess their credibility based on the evidence for them or similar claims. The claim itself is not evidence for what is claimed.

The burden of proof is on the claimant (you). Attempting to shift the burden of proof is fallacious.

It seems ironic that the thread topic is intellectual integrity...

It's a good example of why I chose to start a
thread about integrity.

 

[Neogaia777]

This thread seems to be much more about saying that if you believe anything by faith, you automatically can't be objective, and because of that, also can't ever have any kind of integrity about anything.

And that only people who don't ever believe anything at all, are the only ones who can ever have integrity.

So I guess you could say that this thread was already biased/intellectually dishonest/lacking integrity from the start, etc.

God Bless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And I told you only that it would be completely objectively possible real world possibility, nothing more.

Unless you can show me or quote me when I ever said otherwise?

If you can show or quote me where you said it would be, "completely objectively possible real world possibility, nothing more."

A day "IS AS" a thousand years, and a thousand years "IS AS" a day.

I would say that means it is very, very open to interpretation, wouldn't you?

Sure, if the discussion is about interpretations (btw, 6 days interpreted that way would be 6,000 years, not hundreds of thousands). But the discussion was about being objective and literal.

No you weren't. Don't lie.

I was thinking of various stories with possible 'mundane' explanations, such as the parting of the Red Sea, or the destruction of Sodom.

But an accusation that I lied is where I end this conversation.

 

[oikonomia]

Where I grew up, Christianity is an alien minority
religion.
I was raised atheist though we observed certain
Buddhist rituals and ways of thought. As well
as from other religions including christmas.

I had no interest in or feelings about Chrictian
ideas. My 5+ yrs in the USA was introduction to
Christians.
Not to go into lengthy details, but I was unimpressed.

We teach the same things about morality and ethics,and
more besides, and it's just part of life, no preacher, no
church needed.

The founding documents, starting with Genesis
are an odd mix of nonsense, obscurantism, pointless
recitation, folk,wisdom, advice good and bad, semi
historical accounts with a lot of magic realism.

Many of the actions or instructions of " god"
are horrific.

I could go on... but as a holy book from a god of
perfect goodness...no.
It's not like I didn't read the book.


Those who read it as believers have next to no chance of seeing it without profound, usually unshakeable bias.

It's a highest virtue to just have faith that its all true somehow no matter what.

I was taught to question everything...and keep what proves good and true.
For me the bible is a near total flop in that regard.

Questioning like that is discouraged in church.

And don't forget going to hell if you do dare!

Objectivity has no role there.

Isn't it hell enough not know why even why one lives?

I mean you have enumerated a fairly typical list of complaints against Jesus Christ or at least a cultural "anity" as a religious or social matter.

Your heart beats, your lungs breath, your physical systems probably all work well enough to keep you alive from day to day.
Your mind imagines, remembers, figures out. Your will chooses and your emotions like or dislike things and people.
But do you know why you are here in the universe?

You see the Person of the resurrected Jesus Christ is the only thing which planted in my heart ultimate meaning to everything.
I may have seen even more reasons to be discouraged by Christianity than you.
But I found out the man is alive and available and His love is indestructible, prevailing, and eternal.

If I could possibly drop my personal relationship with Jesus and pick up instead your philosophy, what would it
do for me in terms of enlightening me as to why I am living in this big universe?

What will your atheism furnish me with as to the reason I live or ANYTHING is for that matter?

 

[public hermit]

I've mentioned intellectual integrity as an essential value in
science.
It is of course an ideal, and as such is imperfectly realized.
And dishonest people in all walks of life will do the opposite.

I'm suggesting here that it's a value all would do well to strive
for, and presenting this article as food for thought.

Scientific Integrity and the Ethics of 'Utter Honesty'

Honesty is a core scientific virtue, but what does it require of us?

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Would it be more helpful to scientific integrity if research were a matter of open access? The traditional publishing in journals model seems to have problems. It's not just a matter of having "gatekeepers" who control information flow, but it can limit access to those who might be able to contribute. Maybe Schon's non-replicable nonsense would have been discovered sooner if more people had access? And on the other side, there is the need for researchers to publish for the sake of financial security and advancement, which might encourage publishing false data.

Open access might seem like turning a fine-tuned process into the wild-west, but maybe there is a way to do it so that the best, most interesting research rises to the top.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you can show or quote me where you said it would be, "completely objectively possible real world possibility, nothing more."


Sure, if the discussion is about interpretations (btw, 6 days interpreted that way would be 6,000 years, not hundreds of thousands). But the discussion was about being objective and literal.


I was thinking of various stories with possible 'mundane' explanations, such as the parting of the Red Sea, or the destruction of Sodom.

But an accusation that I lied is where I end this conversation.

This is really going anywhere, so I'll just wait and see if you want to reply to anything else new I said, and maybe reply back to you "maybe" then, ok.

Take Care/God Bless or God Bless/Take Care.

 

[Laodicean60]

This is really going anywhere, so I'll just wait and see if you want to reply to anything else new I said, and maybe reply back to you "maybe" then, ok.

Take Care/God Bless or God Bless/Take Care.

What verse tells us to take the literal interpretation in the bible?

 

[Astrid]

Would it be more helpful to scientific integrity if research were a matter of open access? The traditional publishing in journals model seems to have problems. It's not just a matter of having "gatekeepers" who control information flow, but it can limit access to those who might be able to contribute. Maybe Schon's non-replicable nonsense would have been discovered sooner if more people had access? And on the other side, there is the need for researchers to publish for the sake of financial security and advancement, which might encourage publishing false data.

Open access might seem like turning a fine-tuned process into the wild-west, but maybe there is a way to do it so that the best, most interesting research rises to the top.

Oh, for sure, there's a lot of serious problems
with research!
One could write a treatise on it.

My interest in bringing it up here is a result of
observing how many of our religious friends
prove to have no concern for or even concept
of intellectual honesty.
Routinely denounce all of science as being
like themselves.
Go further and glorify such aberrant thinking
as essential to Faith.

In research it is at least recognized that integrity
is a real and important thing, and often enough
quite severe penalties result from misconduct.