Musings about different types of atheist!

by Seraphim23 304 Replies latest jw friends

snare&racket

Seraphim, I am shocked....you were not at all describing 'm' theory. You contradict it in several places, how embarassing, I wasn't expecting you to say that or be so deceitful.
Latin thunder, nope. Scientists are mere humans.
The ....scientific method ......is the best method we have to test our human hypothesis against what we can observe i.e. 'reality'.
is it perfect? Nope, we usualy work to a confidence interval of 5% in our experiments, i.e. 95% sure we are not getting the results ...we expected...by random chance. The higher we make the percentage the higher the number of experiments we need to do, so 95% intervsls keep experiments physically practical and..importantly...'statisticslly significant'.
That aside, the stats the results are based on can be flawed and this is why it is essential to learn criticsl appraisal of evidence, so as a scientist you can see flaws in experiments and science. This is why every scientific discovery is published in a journal and peer reviewed. Mistakes or false evidence are redacted and that scientist loses their reputation.
There is a higherarchy or scientific research too latinthunder. The least significant being anecdotal evidence such as a doctor noticing that all men that eat carrots having blue ears. Human observation and instinct/intuition alone is proven wrong over snd over sgsin, but we use such observations iften to i utiate more rigorous research.
The highest being a meta analysis of random control trials. So getting groups of men randomly slecting a control group (no carrots) and the carrot eating group then looking at the results. a double blind trial will mean neither the patient or the doctor knows whoch group they are in, not always possible, but much preferred. Then the meta analysis means , doing this study repeatedly all over the workd and comparing resulst of studies that have the same criteria.
there is so much more to it than this obviously. But I am just giving you a basic idea lstin,
All in all, the scientific method has been in use since it was suggested by sir Francis Bacon around 150 years ago and its results are self evident.
If you have a better idea than the scientific method, the world is all ears!
Put it this way, I am 8 months away from being a doctor, after 7 years of study snd scientific education, I would make a life and death desicion based on the scientific data over any other method or idea or instinct. My conscience will do that knowing it is the best data we can get in 2013.
Maybe this gives an insight in how appaled I am with the G.body and their means of dictating life snd destn medical standards! Reading a scroll from the jewish desert and intepreting it's meaning as they see fit.
Snare x
latinthunder

Snare, so the scientific method is the authority on what can be observed through the five human senses?
Comatose

Latinblunder has a big point he is slowly and carefully making. It's winding up for a Big Bang. I can just feel it.
Berengaria

What does any of this have to do with "different types of atheist"?
snare&racket

Latin thunder,
I suggest you go and read up on the scientific methid and then come back. But yes 'observable' is the accumilation of what humans can perceive and they do this via their organs of sense.I would have assumed this was fairly obvious as we know of no other means to observe the universe around us? But st the same time you have hit the nail on the head.... This is ehy we need the scientific method!
To be fair, had you read my reply fully you would see that this human anecdotal evidence is ranked lowest in science, so if you are implying this as flawed, we obviously know this.....The scientific method is all about taking something we observe as a human, then taking it as far away from human bias as possible by turning thst observation into data i.e. into math. We use prediction and probability to play devils advocate against all our observations and even account for random chance too.
The credibility of a piece if evidence is largely determined by its p-value, it's ability to be accurate as predicted by means other than random chance. It is the best method we have so far in human history and once again, we know it works without exception. Humans senses are involved obviously, but it is possible to have technology observe, smell, feel and process information and hence we use so much technology in science.
Lastly, these chats always become very opinionated and personal, these scientific methods are not my methods, these are THE methods. They bring you computer chips, they bring you new antibiotics, they bring new discoveries in biology, physics, chemistry etc... The same scientific method is used to date fossils as is used to see the affects of a cancer drug. Because it is the best method to test what we are seeing and doing as humans. Many people, especially with such upbringings as ours think of science as a collective movement, an ideology, an anti theist body of thought.... It is nonsense, science is a list of 5 rules when observing something around you, thst is it! Anyone using these 5 steps is a 'scientist'..... Doing it well is good science, doing it badly is bad science,
Charles Darwin was not a biologist, but he did thousands of biology experiements and he used the scientific method strictly in every one. When I left the JW's and felt free to examine who Darwin was and see what he had done, I felt so guilty for all those years of mocking him because he gave his whole lifeto experimentation with exquisite detail and method, noting down every tiny detail. Add to that he was a very nice man too Apparantly.
We have done these experiments in modern dsy thousands of times over and we can see just how well he did them then. But yes, he truly was an amazing scientist, but in regard to his theory about the observable, he becomes irrelevant, it is the scientific method he used snd the data he gained from it that became relevant. Hence personal attacks against him and attempts to question his motives are irrelevant as well as distasteful.
the basic idea of the scientific method,
But remember......whatever your feelings sbout the method, it is the best we currently have, nobody has provided or can think of a better one and....AND.... It works!
latinthunder

I suggest you go and read up on the scientific methid and then come back.
I have been reading up on it for years.
But yes 'observable' is the accumilation of what humans can perceive and they do this via their organs of sense.I would have assumed this was fairly obvious as we know of no other means to observe the universe around us? But st the same time you have hit the nail on the head.... This is ehy we need the scientific method!
I believe certain humans have different sensory inputs than others (or just more developed). The scientific method seems to only operate on 5 which is why, imo, it gives an incomplete picture of human reality. Don't get me wrong, I think the method has done wonders for mankind, but it's surely not the end all be all. It seems to totally stall with phenomenons such as psychic ability, astrology the spirit realm and numerology. It appears that only a limited number of humans can interact with these phenomenons. In short what is "observable" to one human is not necessarily observable to another. We don't all have the same brains from a metaphysical perspective. This makes the claim that the scientific method is the "best for truth we have" problematic.
The scientific method is all about taking something we observe as a human
Richard Dawkins did a special called "Enemies of Reason" where he cornered a psychic and told him he wasn't doing anything but "cold reading" and artificially enlongating the grieving process of the bereaved he engaged with. The man's defense was interesting to me. He said that he and a group of others regularly got to together to corroborate their stories. They concluded that the information that would pop into their heads was many times impossible to gather from cold reading. They were able to conclude, among themselves, that what they were experiencing was real, but only for them. If some humans possess a sense that others do not, that sense will likely fail when put under the scientific method. They become "enemies of reason" because they cannot reproduce their experiences in the way the method demands of them. When really what they are doing is their own private peer review which is exactly what mainstream science is. A private peer review group. To me, they are wrongly being pushed out of the mainstream not because they are false, but their explanations and experiences are incomplete. They don't seem to fully understand their own senses, which could be said about the traditional 5 senses before the advent of the scientific method. It's reasonable to assume that someone with a "supernatural" power would not be able to easily convey the means of their power to others.
then taking it as far away from human bias as possible by turning thst observation into data i.e. into math.
Mathmatics is an extremely useful tool to break down the laws of physics, but what of the laws that transcend physics? If such laws existed, they likely would not be compatible with mathematics. Just because something isn't mathematically demonstrable doesn't prove its non existence.
I also don't understand how anyone can conclude that any method brings us "as far away" from human bias as possible. How do you what is possible and what is not? Is math the answer to everything? I don't believe so.
We use prediction and probability to play devils advocate against all our observations and even account for random chance too.
I once tried to see how many tales I could flip with a coin in a row. I made it to 13 on my first try. What are the odds that I would succeed in that venture? How does one factor in the level of chance of such an improbability occurring right after my conginition to attempt the improbable act? My answer is that it's not possible to calculate. And if there are circumstances which are impossible to calculate what does that say about the method of caluclations? It means that they are not the only show in town.
The credibility of a piece if evidence is largely determined by its p-value, it's ability to be accurate as predicted by means other than random chance. It is the best method we have so far in human history and once again, we know it works without exception.
You keep saying "we know the scientific method works." I am not claiming otherwise. What I am claiming is that there is more than one way to get to the truth. And the other ways I am speaking about will likely appear from the perspective of the alternate methods as inherently flawed. Again with the 13 in a row example, the scientific method says that if I cannot reproduce the phenomenon then it was just random chance, which just so happens to sometimes produce what we call "luck" or improbable coincidence.
You seem to imply that we can fully understand "chance" and probability in general. You assume that chance can never be altered and always exists in the same exact way. This assumption really throws you into a tunnel vision type of reality, imo. In my experience (beyond the coin flip experiment) probability is indeed relative. It can be altered by the human mind, but the process should be considered supernatural and not tied to known laws of physics or mathematics. Many times we have an experience where the "why" and "how" are a mystery, but that doesn't invalidate the experience, it just makes it a mystery. Mystery is on purpose.
Humans senses are involved obviously, but it is possible to have technology observe, smell, feel and process information and hence we use so much technology in science.
The "5 senses" are, in my experience, only the surface level sensory input. There is much more data that we recieve and parse than we currently understand. For example what does it feel like to be the victim of racial prejudice? Can we replicate that kind of sensory with technology? Of course not, because a machine will never be human, that's why it's called a machine. The only way we could make something human is to spend the billions of years of evolution necessary to make it happen. There is only one way to do it. We cannot make machines that experience, that would make us God and he already has that Job.
Lastly, these chats always become very opinionated and personal, these scientific methods are not my methods, these are THE methods. They bring you computer chips, they bring you new antibiotics, they bring new discoveries in biology, physics, chemistry etc... The same scientific method is used to date fossils as is used to see the affects of a cancer drug. Because it is the best method to test what we are seeing and doing as humans. Many people, especially with such upbringings as ours think of science as a collective movement, an ideology, an anti theist body of thought.... It is nonsense, science is a list of 5 rules when observing something around you, thst is it! Anyone using these 5 steps is a 'scientist'..... Doing it well is good science, doing it badly is bad science,
Yet, it wasn't the scientific method that abolished slavery. It wasn't a mindless method that fought for woman's rights or died in wars to establish and protect human freedom that gave rise to the method in the first place. All throughout history people have given credit to something beyond themselves, because they knew that was the truth, even though they couldn't demonstate that truth. They couldn't in good conscience take full credit for something they didn't fully accomplish themselves. Even though according to the scientific method they were the only ones present to accomplish it.
I appreciate all that the scientific method has brought forth, but I don't worship it as I see many people doing. I see it as something that was purposed by the divine to speed things up. Food at the proper time, so to speak.
Charles Darwin was not a biologist, but he did thousands of biology experiements and he used the scientific method strictly in every one. When I left the JW's and felt free to examine who Darwin was and see what he had done, I felt so guilty for all those years of mocking him because he gave his whole lifeto experimentation with exquisite detail and method, noting down every tiny detail. Add to that he was a very nice man too Apparantly.
Darwin's research shook the foundation of the world. It also was purposed.
But remember......whatever your feelings sbout the method, it is the best we currently have, nobody has provided or can think of a better one and....AND.... It works!
Again, you seem to be implying that I don't believe the scientific method works. It works fine for what it was purposed to do. A toaster works good for making toast, but it's useless for anything outside of the scope of it's design. Instead of making a toaster do something outside of what it was designed to do, why not just make something new to accomplish the new task? I don't believe science was crafted to explain the supernatrual, that's what religion and spirituality is for. I am firm believer that the two can exist side by side as allies, not enemies.
snare&racket

Latin thunder... I dont see what your issue with science is? It's role is to determine what is probable in the observable and it does it perfectly well. The only thing I can thi k, is,that you are trying to say science is flawed? But we know it works, that is why we use it, by saying ....well maybe it COULD be better offers nothing and ignores that it works, it doesn't make it flawed. We are the weakest link in science and we can't remove ourselves from the universe. So this is all nothing more than verbal masturbation. unless you have a better method and more reliable method for observing the universe....what is the point you are trying to make? out in the future we may improve on the scientific method by some yet unknown means? Okay....... Doesnt help us now though and again..... The scientific method works. It isn't flawed.....
You want to talk about the unobservable, that is ok but that is changing the topic....that is not science that is faith, that is hope in things not observed, that is religion or supernatural belief, having NEVER observed it, this is not a topic I am qualified to discuss. As for science, it is limited to the observable as we are too, as you said. So again I am unsure why you bring ut up, however it is a good reminder why science does not cross over into the realm of the supernatural as science is limited to what we can observe.
As for your issue with humans, yes...we are human, we only have our senses and the knowledge we have collected so far including such specialties as mathematics. Again, nothing we can do about that. If you have s suggestion better than science for observing the universe, then promote it. To say simply 'maybe there is a better way' offers nothing and ignores the fact that again.....science works just fine!
Your point about mathmatics is a little bizzare, maths works, that why we use it. But ignoring sll that saying we may have better means of empirical measurment than mathematics in the future but not yet discovered, well fine, but again that is of no use to us now and again....science DOES work fine so it is kimd of irrelevant.
For the observable, science works, it is the best thing we have. Asking someone about science then looking for flaws in all the parts in it that may have flaws is not offering the world anything new. The world has already worked forward and worked through those flaws to reach the scientific method we currently use. Plus you are looking at it back to front, you are using your flawed human mind, logic and senses to question empirical mathmatics and science. The empirical data will always be more reliable than us.
Now you started asking about human emotions, something quite separate to our auditory, visual and sensory inputs. I have no idea why you brought this up, but you said...
The "5 senses" are, in my experience, only the surface level sensory input. There is much more data that we recieve and parse than we currently understand. For example what does it feel like to be the victim of racial prejudice?
i have no idea what you mean, for we understand all of this. It is no mystery at all. Racial prejudice is witnessed by the senses i.e. The eye sees the body language or the abusive hand gestures or the racist t-shirt, or the anger and distain on a racists face, the ears hear the tone and words used by a racist, the body senses the physical abuse of a racial attack as pain etc etc.... What part of this example of racial prejudice do you feel is not picked up by sensory organs? What you are describing is impossible by any other means But the senses! As for how the racially prejudiced feels, his evolution kicks in, he senses danger and the fight or flight response occurs, adrenaline is released and this closes the non essential blood vessels in the peripheries giving you clammy cold hamds, the blood is diverted from non essential organs such as the stomach giving that 'feeling' of fear, or butterflies in your stomach, your heart races sending the blood that has been diverted to the heart and brain.... The pupils widen, the breathing increases. cortisol, a stress hormone is released, now sugar is being taken to all the cells ready to power a response...you may even start to shake.... Etc etc etc..... We understand all of the physiology, add to that the brain later replaying the even and previous racial prejudice, recalling older imagery, smells, beatings and emotions, making you feel sad, secluded and seperate.... There is no mystery latin.
We understand such human interactions fully, i dont know what you think we are missing or is left a mystery?
For Cofty, Seraphim and Latin take a peak at this video, it covers nearly everything that has come up including your wuestions on the scientific methid latin.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PL84Yg2dNsg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPL84Yg2dNsg
snare&racket

"Yet, it wasn't the scientific method that abolished slavery. It wasn't a mindless method that fought for woman's rights or died in wars to establish and protect human freedom that gave rise to the method in the first place. All throughout history people have given credit to something beyond themselves, because they knew that was the truth, even though they couldn't demonstate that truth. They couldn't in good conscience take full credit for something they didn't fully accomplish themselves. Even though according to the scientific method they were the only ones present to accomplish it."
i have never heard anyone claim any of this so I don't know why you would say it. People accomplished amazing things in the name of zeus or baal or any number of deities. But also people accomplish things in the name of charities, personal motivations or due to simply biology....our desire to survive. Just because someone says they did it with god's help doesn't mean they did. Can you name one act YOU think humans achieved that would be IMPOSSIBLEM to achieve as a human alone? There is not one......
"I appreciate all that the scientific method has brought forth, but I don't worship it as I see many people doing. I see it as something that was purposed by the divine to speed things up. Food at the proper time, so to speak."
i have no idea who you have seen worshipping the 5 suggestions Of the scientific method. You have seen MANY do this? In 7 years of science, I have never met one person worship it. I'm not sure I could say I have even met someone even LIKE it. Just as "mirror, signal, manouevere" is the best method of leaving a parking spot in a car, the scientific method is the best way to look at evidence. I have never met anyone with emotions for "mirror, signal, maouevere" and i am suprised that you think people have emotions, so far as to worship...the 5 stages of looking at evidence!?!
How bizzare?! The people you see worship the 5 stages of observation, were they clinically unwell? Are they people you know personally? How strange!?
Also you believe god provided the scientific method? Which god did this? How do you know? You cant use science to decide, only your senses , which you admit are flawed. So which god gave it us? which god, from which religion? How do YOU know he did and how could you show me he did?
So after this long discussion your point is that science if for the observable and not the unobservable. Well i knew that yesterday and if you are saying you knew that yesterday, why were you asking me about the scientific method at all? Seems like a waste of time.
i assume you feel you have experienced miracles and supernatural events, or are you tsking the word of others that say they have? Been as I havent experienced them and choose not to take the word of other on the matter AND been as science cannot offer any help to us with it, I naturally have no reason at all to believe in it. it is not testsble, repeatable, observable and so it is just the testimony of the person claiming to have done something that breaks all the rules of nature something science says is impossible. Of course i habe no reason to believe in it, so I can't.
You say religion has the role to answer the supernatural, but which religion? Which god? Which supernatural anecdotal story will you choose to believe or not believe? Do you believe in Venus? Ra? ThOr? Based on what? How are you making these desicions? Been as science can't be used and you have told me correctly that our senses and logic and reasoning are flawed, how will you decide between Buddsh, yaweh, allah or Zeus ? All you can do is verbally masturbate in circles as with respect, you have done for the last three pages on the forum..... As we both can see, it got nowhere... It is pointless. It is more honest to say "we don't know" and stick with the evidence.
Good luck in your quest, i am in theatre all day today assisting surgery, back to the science for me.....
snare&racket

I missed your paragraph on probability..... But that is probably a good thing becsuse it made me grumpy. No offence but I assume you don't really appreciate probability or understand it. Have you ever studied it? I have studied it in higher mathmatics and yes, as I told you already, we account for it in our experiments. Probability has to be done in hard core maths, you cant go off instince or experience or opinion. Have you studied probabilty ? At what level?
But anyway, YES... We account for probability and blind luck every time, it is also why we peer review and it is also why we say we cant apply science to the supernatural as it has to be OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, REPEATABLE.
As we repeat the experiments and research over and over, we have no issue with that problem. As I said, I don't think you quite understand. When an experiment is over we get a result and a predictive value, we know if the results COULD have come by via random chance, and if so we ignore the results as statistically insignificant, just to be safe! So we are already ten steps ahead of you with that. Then you sstarted attacking the scientific method on the basis that you assumed I dont appreciate probability.... This is odd and a little nuts. I once again, did not create the scientific method. The world's experts in probabilty, somewhat better at it than you, do all the statistics and math for every individual experiment and say at the beginning of an experiment How much work they need to do and what results they need to remove random chance.
Just to conclude, science is not sbout opinion it is about evidence. Throughout your response you repeated 'imo' i.e. In your opinion. I didn't want to,be disrespectful, but in the realms of empirical examination of data your opinion and mine is irrelevant,
the scientific method works....
I have no idea why you just had that conversation with me, you just wanted to simply add... Science cant be used in the relams of the supernatural, religin can and there is a God. ....... That is up to you, you may also believe in unicorns or fairies, but it is irrelevant To the scientific method and how I personally decide what is true or not....
Before we go, may i ask what educational background you have, what qualifications you have, what your job profession is and what your speciality is? I am really interested to know been as you have submitted so,many opinions on how to do science. Don't worry, it isnt to be mean or anything.
Seraphim23

I’m not saying I am an expert of what is called M theory snare but the deceit is not on my side unless lay descriptions and ideas are now wrong. Considering that M theory may not even be properly categorised as science that is a bit rich on your part! What is interesting to me is that because I am a believer in God my ideas don’t get the hearing and respect they would if I were using scientific sounding terminology and professing the label of atheist. I guess the perception that I am not on team atheist has more to do with ideology than a fair hearing and impartiality. The idea of a framework of which the universe is not the only thing but within so to speak, gets rejected in this context but accepted in another. That says less about me being deceitful and more about you and others perception and bias. I’m glad you’re a doctor because you may lean from you patients in time that some things in life don’t fit the scientific paradigm, despite its power.

Musings about different types of atheist!

Share this