Science Doesn't Work

Received · Aug 6, 2014

variant said:
You've decided to speak in vague generalities that you call "not literal" to make a point of some sort, but it is lost on me because you aren't really defining your key terms.

I don't need to define my terms with regard the OP. I wasn't ostensibly making it about science or religion or madwomen or anything, but about how you should give something a fair shot. It's your specifications that require defining terms, which with regard to the OP are irrelevant. Your claims of vagueness are conditioned on taking the OP in a way it wasn't mean to be taken ("literally").

I mean that I understand exactly what you mean when you speak of an experiment reaching statistically significant results, and yet I have no idea what you are talking about with this X Y and Z idea.

This is because you have provided more specifications (technical standards) on the former.

On the latter I expected you to provide the same kind of information, (or some examples to illustrate what you mean) and yet you balk for some reason.

I don't balk, and accusing me of balking because you want a response not related to the OP doesn't make it so.

And the X Y Z deal has already been explained in a very recent post.

I wonder what that reason is?

Yeah, you know what Freud would say: in one ear and out your mother.

So, do you intend to continue to hide behind semantics or do you actually want to explore the ideas you present?

See above.

True Scotsman · Aug 6, 2014

Received said:
...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

ETA: Everyone please keep in mind that I'm not arguing (at all) that science doesn't work. I'm appealing to the type of fallacious reasoning a person would commit like with the OP. And you can replace science with the following:

I tried dating a woman who ended up being crazy...and concluded I shouldn't date because all women are crazy.

I tried a protein smoothie blend that gave me indigestion...and concluded I shouldn't try any protein drinks because they all give me indigestion.

I tried debating with a Christian but he was an idiot...and concluded that all Christians are idiots.

You get it.

You are including two very disparate things in a package deal here. Science and theology work on two very different philosophical bases. Science rests on a sound one of the primacy of existence but all theology rests on the invalid principle of the primacy of consciousness. Therefore while science has a great track record of getting things right, theology is wrong from the get go. No matter how many theologies you try they all have the same fundamental error that renders them false.

Usus Vox Tractus · Aug 6, 2014

True Scotsman said:
You are including two very disparate things in a package deal here. Science and theology work on two very different philosophical bases. Science rests on a sound one of the primacy of existence but all theology rests on the invalid principle of the primacy of consciousness. Therefore while science has a great track record of getting things right, theology is wrong from the get go. No matter how many theologies you try they all have the same fundamental error that renders them false.

As there is only one whole Reality; science is the objective approach and theology is the subjective approach. The ideal is to have a balanced growth of both relationships and eventually the two resolve into One.

bhsmte · Aug 6, 2014

Received said:
I don't need to define my terms with regard the OP. I wasn't ostensibly making it about science or religion or madwomen or anything, but about how you should give something a fair shot. It's your specifications that require defining terms, which with regard to the OP are irrelevant. Your claims of vagueness are conditioned on taking the OP in a way it wasn't mean to be taken ("literally").

I don't balk, and accusing me of balking because you want a response not related to the OP doesn't make it so.

And the X Y Z deal has already been explained in a very recent post.

Yeah, you know what Freud would say: in one ear and out your mother.

See above.

You know what, maybe old Sigmund was just projecting, with all this talk of having the hot's for your mother.

Received · Aug 6, 2014

His mom was only 21 when he was born.

Received · Aug 6, 2014

"Sometimes an incestuous attraction to your mother is just an incestuous attraction to your mother."

variant · Aug 6, 2014

Received said:
I don't need to define my terms with regard the OP. I wasn't ostensibly making it about science or religion or madwomen or anything, but about how you should give something a fair shot. It's your specifications that require defining terms, which with regard to the OP are irrelevant. Your claims of vagueness are conditioned on taking the OP in a way it wasn't mean to be taken ("literally").

You are trying to make a point about things 'working', and how we should evaluate that, so yeah.

I don't balk, and accusing me of balking because you want a response not related to the OP doesn't make it so.

And the X Y Z deal has already been explained in a very recent post.

Oh yeah? I must have missed it. Care to direct me?

variant · Aug 6, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
Much of the "workability" of biblical passages especially Jesus's metaphors have multi-scalar workability. They work energetically and physically and are designed to be heard be those with "ears to here" and pass over the heads of the obtuse.

For instance: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". But, a footnote on Matthew 19:24 which states that the Aramaic word gamla means rope and camel, possibly because the ropes were made from camel hair.

So let's look at it again; The rich man was told he must give all he had to the poor, for a rope to get through the eye of a needle it must untwist, unwind, and become a single strand again. It fit's perfectly. And that's just the physical interpretation.

The spiritual interpretation is this: The man who worships God is made rich in spirit. Rich in peace, joy, knowledge, compassion, wisdom, etc. This is what you must give away to the poor in spirit. That is taking care of the orphans (fatherless, guideless) and widows (husbandless, shepardless). That (imho) is turning water (truth) into wine (joy, good cheer) and washing your fellow man in the "blood of Christ".

So, how do we determine whether or not these things work?

Perhaps Received can apply his X Y and Z standard here to unmuddy it? But, I guess that would be asking too much.

How we can best judge how things work is apparently quite unrelated to a discussion about how much we should indulge religious ideas before deciding they don't work.

Received · Aug 6, 2014

variant said:
Perhaps Received can apply his X Y and Z standard here to unmuddy it? But, I guess that would be asking too much.

Your manipulation is so incredibly subtle! I wonder who you learned it from...need to take notes...

True Scotsman · Aug 6, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
As there is only one whole Reality; science is the objective approach and theology is the subjective approach. The ideal is to have a balanced growth of both relationships and eventually the two resolve into One.

Yes the imaginary and the real blended into one is theology's stock in trade. Science makes a distinction between the two and accepts only the objective as knowledge.

Received · Aug 6, 2014

True Scotsman said:
Yes the imaginary and the real blended into one is theology's stock in trade. Science makes a distinction between the two and accepts only the objective as knowledge.

Actually if you're a physicalist reductionist and you're into QM, you've gotta accept that all is one and that false beliefs are also part of this oneness, given that you identify the biological correlates of thinking to *be* thinking.

Just sayin'.

Usus Vox Tractus · Aug 6, 2014

True Scotsman said:
Yes the imaginary and the real blended into one is theology's stock in trade. Science makes a distinction between the two and accepts only the objective as knowledge.

Knowledge is not living life. You have to use your immensely more powerful magnetic heart to entrain with Reality. All objective knowledge is a step removed from reality. Objective knowledge is a useful barrier up until a point. You will never "exit the box" if everything you based your paradigm on is external and material.

Visible physical matter can only account for 4% of the forces acting on matter in the cosmos. How are you going to find the other 96%?

Paradoxum · Aug 6, 2014

Received said:
Which brings up a good point: how do we stay openminded without being biased? And I think bias is unavoidable here, and wouldn't know what a nonbiased choice of anything would look like: isn't it fair to say that any time we make a choice based on preference or even practical reasoning that we're being biased against other options?

I'm not sure that all reasoning is necessarily biased. And even slightly biased thinking can be at least less biased than that of others.

"Not if you're reasonably considering options." Okay, but that can apply to religion as well.

True... I think I considered theism reasonably, and figured out that's there's no justifying evidence for it.

Heck if I know. I don't even know how my toaster works.

Fair enough. Don't you wonder about stuff like that though? If it doesn't make sense to you, then perhaps it makes no sense at all... because there is no God.

Well, I'd be right there with you if it wasn't for the incredibly practical theology of Kierkegaard and the mystics.

Practically making stuff up? Isn't that sort of it? (Perhaps a strawman )

At the end of the day we're not looking for "truth" so much as a theory that ties everything together as much as possible. Theology has had the option and has failed miserably in general.

No... I care about the truth.

Ana the Ist · Aug 6, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
You have to use your immensely more powerful magnetic heart to entrain with Reality.

I'm not too proud to admit that I had to look up the word "entrain". It was defined as "to board a train."

Is that what you meant or did you mean another word?

variant · Aug 6, 2014

Received said:
Your manipulation is so incredibly subtle! I wonder who you learned it from...need to take notes...

What manipulation received?

I'm just following where you lead me.

When someone presents me with a theological idea as vox did there, I can't really tell if your standard would say it would 'work' or not, so in turn, I have no idea if your argument would be that I am being overly dismissive of it or not when I don't try it out.

Overall in this thread you started out with a very general argument and then, whenever I asked a hard question you limit your scope and call my questions irrelevant, until you seem to be arguing nothing at all.

All I have said here is that if we use what you have said, most of the discussion on the topic is beyond us (at least as far as actually applying any of your ideas in any given setting).

I hope you don't have anyone good questioning you when you go for your thesis defense.

variant · Aug 6, 2014

Received said:
Actually if you're a physicalist reductionist and you're into QM, you've gotta accept that all is one and that false beliefs are also part of this oneness, given that you identify the biological correlates of thinking to *be* thinking.

Just sayin'.

False beliefs still exist as things yes.

Usus Vox Tractus · Aug 6, 2014

Ana the Ist said:
I'm not too proud to admit that I had to look up the word "entrain". It was defined as "to board a train."

Is that what you meant or did you mean another word?

Entrainment is what you do to dance with the beat of a song.

Ana the Ist · Aug 6, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
Entrainment is what you do to dance with the beat of a song.

I'm gonna level with you Usus...i looked it up again and didn't see that definition anywhere. There was something regarding the trapping of air bubbles, but I don't think that's what you meant either. This creates something of a problem....

You write a sentence about "magnetic hearts" and include things like "entrain reality" and I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. It sounds pretty, but it's nonsensical. Even pretty nonsense is, unfortunately, still nonsense. Now, you could say the problem is on my end and I just don't comprehend what you're saying...but I gave it a shot. I looked up the words I didn't understand and it's still nonsensical. Perhaps, and this is something I'd really like you to consider, the problem is on your end?

If your intention was, however, to somehow be so abstract as to not make any sense, then you've succeeded. If you're genuinely trying to communicate an idea...why not speak plainly? Maybe it's not something you appreciate, but there is a certain beauty to an idea that can be communicated simply, in the fewest words possible, without any misunderstanding at all.

Could you rewrite the sentence i originally quoted in such a way?

Usus Vox Tractus · Aug 6, 2014

Ana the Ist said:
I'm gonna level with you Usus...i looked it up again and didn't see that definition anywhere. There was something regarding the trapping of air bubbles, but I don't think that's what you meant either. This creates something of a problem....

You write a sentence about "magnetic hearts" and include things like "entrain reality" and I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. It sounds pretty, but it's nonsensical. Even pretty nonsense is, unfortunately, still nonsense. Now, you could say the problem is on my end and I just don't comprehend what you're saying...but I gave it a shot. I looked up the words I didn't understand and it's still nonsensical. Perhaps, and this is something I'd really like you to consider, the problem is on your end?

If your intention was, however, to somehow be so abstract as to not make any sense, then you've succeeded. If you're genuinely trying to communicate an idea...why not speak plainly? Maybe it's not something you appreciate, but there is a certain beauty to an idea that can be communicated simply, in the fewest words possible, without any misunderstanding at all.

Could you rewrite the sentence i originally quoted in such a way?

You're absolutely right, and thank you for your patience. I am still learning proper English communication skills. I come from a place of understanding that is 3d, kinesthetic and visual. I am still learning to express what I know or think I know in acceptable linear format.

I'm in the middle of a few things IRL but will get back to you asap.

Ana the Ist · Aug 6, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
You're absolutely right, and thank you for your patience. I am still learning proper English communication skills. I come from a place of understanding that is 3d, kinesthetic and visual. I am still learning to express what I know or think I know in acceptable linear format.

I'm in the middle of a few things IRL but will get back to you asap.

Fair enough...

Science Doesn't Work

True love waits in haunted attics

Objectivist

Newbie

Newbie

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Happy Cat

Happy Cat

True love waits in haunted attics

Objectivist

True love waits in haunted attics

Newbie

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Aggressively serene!

Happy Cat

Happy Cat

Newbie

Aggressively serene!

Newbie

Aggressively serene!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency