Science Doesn't Work

[bhsmte]

Okay, can't help myself. This is an important point.

Other people can read. First I'd ask if you think your perspective is the right one just because you have it. And notice that me going off the deep end by defending myself is completely irrelevant to the argument, and also presupposes an ad hominem by you.

But more importantly, even if everyone saw like you did and your view was unambiguously correct, I say: so what? My point is that, regardless of whether you see me correctly or not in a certain way, using labels for me only negates who I am. Hence Kierkegaard could say, "if you label me, you negate me." Even if your labels are "correct", they don't come close to summarizing me; quite the opposite, they're much more likely to poison the well.

Here is where I believe the problem lies between conversations between believers and non-believers, when believers are trying to explain why the believe what they do:

From my observations, believers seem to have a very difficult time admitting; they don't know, or they are not clear on something and they tend to claim they do know and start speculating this or that, based on a bunch of assumptions. Now, I understand why this happens and the need a believer would have to try and solidify their belief in this way. The problem comes in, when these ideas are challenged and challenged objectively and they don't do very well. Then defensiveness sets in and things start to get out of hand.

IMO, it is the sign of a healthy mind, when someone can admit; they simply don't know. It is also a good sign, when someone is willing to change their mind on something, when they acquire new knowledge, they did not possess before.

 

[Received]

Here is where I believe the problem lies between conversations between believers and non-believers, when believers are trying to explain why the believe what they do:

From my observations, believers seem to have a very difficult time admitting; they don't know, or they are not clear on something and they tend to claim they do know and start speculating this or that, based on a bunch of assumptions. Now, I understand why this happens and the need a believer would have to try and solidify their belief in this way. The problem comes in, when these ideas are challenged and challenged objectively and they don't do very well. Then defensiveness sets in and things start to get out of hand.

IMO, it is the sign of a healthy mind, when someone can admit; they simply don't know. It is also a good sign, when someone is willing to change their mind on something, when they acquire new knowledge, they did not possess before.

Agree. But we should also point out that the same thing happens to unbelievers of all shades, where they don't admit when they're wrong for fear of having their ideas challenged. The same emotional attachment goes with theism as with atheism.

 

[bhsmte]

Agree. But we should also point out that the same thing happens to unbelievers of all shades, where they don't admit when they're wrong for fear of having their ideas challenged. The same emotional attachment goes with theism as with atheism.

I agree, it does work both ways, depending on how psychologically attached one is to their ideology.

Again, my experience has been, that many believers, really struggle to admit they don't know something, or even they are just speculating. I understand the need for some to do so, but it is abused by many IMO, and only puts people on the defensive when challenged.

 

[variant]

Okay, can't help myself. This is an important point.

Predictable.

Other people can read. First I'd ask if you think your perspective is the right one just because you have it. And notice that me going off the deep end by defending myself is completely irrelevant to the argument, and also presupposes an ad hominem by you.

But more importantly, even if everyone saw like you did and your view was unambiguously correct, I say: so what? My point is that, regardless of whether you see me correctly or not in a certain way, using labels for me only negates who I am. Hence Kierkegaard could say, "if you label me, you negate me." Even if your labels are "correct", they don't come close to summarizing me; quite the opposite, they're much more likely to poison the well.

I am just describing your actions and your arguments, not you as a whole person.

It is not an ad hominem to severely criticize the fact that you wont address a point, nor is it ad hominem to notice that you blame the person who asked the question in both cases instead of addressing the point.

All I am saying there is that everyone can see what happened.

You got asked a tough question or two and you repeatedly dodged them.

 

[Received]

Predictable.



I am just describing your actions and your arguments, not you as a whole person.

It is not an ad hominem to severely criticize the fact that you wont address a point, nor is it ad hominem to notice that you blame the person who asked the question in both cases instead of addressing the point.

All I am saying there is that everyone can see what happened.

You got asked a tough question or two and you repeatedly dodged them.

If I beat up your wife, then claim her for "dodging" cleaning house for her abusers, do you see anything wrong with this?

If you're labeling me, you are restricting me, at least from the perspective of others.

 

[variant]

If I beat up your wife, then claim her for "dodging" cleaning house for her abusers, do you see anything wrong with this?

Calling you out isn't abusing you.

If I was asking you if you beat your wife that would be one thing, I asked for an example of your general "standard" working in practice.

You didn't want to do this for some reason and became excessively evasive (but you were fine discussing up till this point).

If you're labeling me, you are restricting me, at least from the perspective of others.

Describing you based upon your actions.

 

[Loudmouth]

FYI, guys, I'm a research coordinator, so forgive me if I'm using informal speech to get home an idea that wouldn't be literally formally accepted. "I didn't get any results," means, "I didn't get the results I wanted," or "I didn't get statistical significance," therefore the results are useless.

Supporting the null hypothesis is not useless. If the placebo has as much effect as the experimental drug then you have learned something very important: the drug isn't effective.

The problem with theology is that it doesn't care what the results are. It will continue to argue that the drug is effective, no matter what the experiments show.

 

[Received]

Supporting the null hypothesis is not useless. If the placebo has as much effect as the experimental drug then you have learned something very important: the drug isn't effective.

The problem with theology is that it doesn't care what the results are. It will continue to argue that the drug is effective, no matter what the experiments show.

That isn't inherent to theology.

And I disagree on the conclusion that a drug isn't effective. Only if you're comparing two groups. Given the power of placebo as a very real phenomenon (the power of hope, whatever, on health, etc.), if a drug only works as well as -- or not better than it to the point of statistical significance or (more importantly) clinical significance (effect size) -- placebo, that points to the power of placebo. Even placebo groups are bad for controls, in a sense, given that they often carry the placebo effect. An inherent methodological problem? Probably. Irving Kirsch has taken this idea to universal antidepressant levels: given that antidepressants don't work better than placebo, and a few other methodological points (and antidepressant research is rife with bad methodology) he covers, the real power of antidepressants might lie in their ability to work as the spotlight for our culturally determined mythological status we have for drugs. Note the incredible irony of this idea given the "science-holier-than-thou" involved with the psychiatric crowd, given that they're just buying into a terribly methodologically constructed argument for medication which actually loses out to the power of myth in the sense of positive belief (enter placebo). Not the antidepressant drugs that work, but their placebo abilities; but the moment you unveil antidepressant drugs as placebos, at least for the vast majority of the population, you run into a terrible ethical problem of whether it's good to remove the scales from the people's eyes and tell them their drugs are all just the power of placebo thinking that will dissolve the moment you remove these scales. Anyways.

And supporting the null hypothesis can be very useless, again, if indeed the real problem isn't your data or groups in comparison, but your silly incompetence as an experimenter in having basic methodological problems.

 

[Loudmouth]

That isn't inherent to theology.

It is inherent in dogmatic faith which is a part of many theologies.

And I disagree on the conclusion that a drug isn't effective. Only if you're comparing two groups. Given the power of placebo as a very real phenomenon (the power of hope, whatever, on health, etc.), if a drug only works as well as -- or not better than it to the point of statistical significance or (more importantly) clinical significance (effect size) -- placebo, that points to the power of placebo. Even placebo groups are bad for controls, in a sense, given that they often carry the placebo effect. An inherent methodological problem? Probably. Irving Kirsch has taken this idea to universal antidepressant levels: given that antidepressants don't work better than placebo, and a few other methodological points (and antidepressant research is rife with bad methodology) he covers, the real power of antidepressants might lie in their ability to work as our culturally determined mythological status we have for drugs. Not the antidepressant drugs that work, but their placebo abilities; but the moment you unveil antidepressant drugs as placebos, at least for the vast majority of the population, you run into a terrible ethical problem of whether it's good to remove the scales from the people's eyes and tell them their drugs are all just the power of placebo thinking that will dissolve the moment you remove these scales. Anyways.

In other words, believing there is a God will have an effect that is indistinguishable from there actually being a God or no God. Kind of a built-in out, wouldn't you say?

And supporting the null hypothesis can be very useless, again, if indeed the real problem isn't your data or groups in comparison, but your silly incompetence as an experimenter in having basic methodological problems.

Which only stresses the point of doing good science, contrary to the title of the thread.

 

[Received]

It is inherent in dogmatic faith which is a part of many theologies.

Agreed, but that also distinguishes theology from dogmatic faith, and by extension (arguably) nondogmatic from dogmatic faith (as we're using "dogmatic" here).

In other words, believing there is a God will have an effect that is indistinguishable from there actually being a God or no God. Kind of a built-in out, wouldn't you say?

Well, I was mostly rambling on irrelevant stuff. But yes, the placebo effect opens wide open the door that being better off for believing in God doesn't at all prove God. You can extend this to evolutionary levels: if religions evolved, they did so for a good reason, namely to help people have a chance of spreading their genes (which could get filtered through to group cohesion, etc.). The big question I have is: considering that you really don't have proof for or against God, and if you can make a good case for why theism can help your life more than atheism, why not take the step and join with theism? A bit off topic.

Which only stresses the point of doing good science, contrary to the title of the thread.

The title of the thread is provocative and analogous, not at all an argument that involves science as the central subject (hence my ETA in the OP). It's all about hasty generalizations, of which thinking in a scientific context is but one example.

 

[fireof god98]

Agreed, but that also distinguishes theology from dogmatic faith, and by extension (arguably) nondogmatic from dogmatic faith (as we're using "dogmatic" here).



Well, I was mostly rambling on irrelevant stuff. But yes, the placebo effect opens wide open the door that being better off for believing in God doesn't at all prove God. You can extend this to evolutionary levels: if religions evolved, they did so for a good reason, namely to help people have a chance of spreading their genes (which could get filtered through to group cohesion, etc.). The big question I have is: considering that you really don't have proof for or against God, and if you can make a good case for why theism can help your life more than atheism, why not take the step and join with theism? A bit off topic.



The title of the thread is provocative and analogous, not at all an argument that involves science as the central subject (hence my ETA in the OP). It's all about hasty generalizations, of which thinking in a scientific context is but one example.

ah pascals wager. well if we took the step to theism then the nest question is what god. because even if i picked the christian god there is still a chance that Allah is the one true god and so i still go to hell

 

[Received]

ah pascals wager. well if we took the step to theism then the nest question is what god. because even if i picked the christian god there is still a chance that Allah is the one true god and so i still go to hell

You talk like there are forty thousand deities up there clamoring for space.

How about forty thousand lenses?

 

[fireof god98]

You talk like there are forty thousand deities up there clamoring for space.

How about forty thousand lenses?

nope,but there are different gods for different people all around the world. which one is real. i don't know

 

[Received]

nope,but there are different gods for different people all around the world. which one is real. i don't know

If I'm trying to remember an old friend, and I think up two different versions of him, you're saying this means there's no such thing as the old friend I'm trying to represent but only two representations?

 

[fireof god98]

If I'm trying to remember an old friend, and I think up two different versions of him, you're saying this means there's no such thing as the old friend I'm trying to represent but only two representations?

if you have two versions of your friend,one being a nerd and the other a jock complete different in character. then one of the versions you have must be wrong. many a mental patient have their ``old friend`` and that is reality to them but it is not objective truth.

 

[Received]

if you have two versions of your friend,one being a nerd and the other a jock complete different in character. then one of the versions you have must be wrong. many a mental patient have their ``old friend`` and that is reality to them but it is not objective truth.

Yes, but one version being wrong doesn't at all negate the reality of the person on whom you're basing the representation.

Which is why it's wrong to claim there are multiple deities, rather than one (or one deity reality) which spawns different interpretations.

 

[fireof god98]

Yes, but one version being wrong doesn't at all negate the reality of the person on whom you're basing the representation.

Which is why it's wrong to claim there are multiple deities, rather than one (or one deity reality) which spawns different interpretations.

so how do we find the true representation of this god. this ipso facto of truth. why does this one deity care not to correct peoples understanding and show them he is the real one?

 

[Received]

so how do we find the true representation of this god. this ipso facto of truth. why does this one deity care not to correct peoples understanding and show them he is the real one?

That's another discussion, and a big one at that. I'm just pointing out the "many gods out there" hypothesis logically can't be true with any real-world application that takes half a minute.

 

[fireof god98]

That's another discussion, and a big one at that. I'm just pointing out the "many gods out there" hypothesis logically can't be true with any real-world application that takes half a minute.

yes i agree. if there is a god i believe there could only be one because then we could have a moral system. the point i was just trying to make is that even if we were to put our faith in the christian god there is still a chance that the Muslim god could be real and we still go to hell. no matter what position you take,there is always a chance your wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

yes i agree. if there is a god i believe there could only be one because then we could have a moral system. the point i was just trying to make is that even if we were to put our faith in the christian god there is still a chance that the Muslim god could be real and we still go to hell. no matter what position you take,there is always a chance your wrong.

This is why, if there is a God and assuming it is a personal God (which I give the least likelihood to by the way) one can only hope, this God would understand just how difficult he made it to believe in him, for people that need to understand, with some level of objectivity.