Thats an indicator of your lack of any real education.
Why is it that the people who things wrong the most are the first to get insulting and start calling everyone else stupid? It's almost as if they are screaming into a mirror.
The Philosophy of Science
by Oubliette 60 Replies latest members private
-
Viviane
-
DJS
Oubilette,
Great OP. We have similar if not identical missions. I've noted before that the only 'gift' I bring to this site and to my ex-Dub friends is an ability to think rationally, objectively and leave emotion, feelings, prejudices and beliefs out of our decision making process. My education is not in science, so I almost never post on the sciece topics. My own personal rules of engagement are that I avoid serious topics where I'm not a SME. Like you, when I post on technical or secular topics I am an expert or I qualify my comments.
And VG, I'm one who makes comments about high school grads. I know many theists on this site have advanced education, but the preachers and proseletyzers and very hard core theists amongsts us almost certainly do not. We were all trapped in Borgland by delusional narcissists who thought they had a direct path to the big girl in the sky, and most of them had nothing but a high school education. You have also probably noticed that many of the OPs and/or comments are provided by non-experts who make defnitive statements, whether it is about masturbation or emergency management (both of which, btw, I'm experts in). I won't apologize for making smart-ass comments about non-experts making grandiose definitive and un-supported by the data statements or theists taking the place of the GB, trying to preach to all of us ex-Dubs because they have the 'real truth' and/or 'special knowledge' (excuse me, I have to go vomit. . . . . . ok, I'm back now). If that shoe fits, they should by all means collectively wear it.
After leaving the Borg I went back to college. Since I knew a lot about the subject I took several relgious classes as electives. Each was taught by individuals with doctorate degrees in divinity, and each prof had been ministers and were still involved with various churches. Now the interesting part: each was also more atheist than theist. They sounded much more like me, Viv, Cofty and Snare than they did Perry, ColdSteel and the recently departed Rev. I suspect one would find the same amongst many with advanced degrees in religion/divinity.
I like you VG. I don't think we are that far apart.
-
Frazzled UBM
Oubliette - I have only just come back to this thread. I saw your patronising response to my post and your pathetic attempt to answer my questions. I was not looking for you to actually answer my questions because those questions do not have straight forward answers but in fact I was trying to raise some of the actual philosophical conundrums. What the Philosophy of Science shows is that there is a wide disparity of views among those who have contributed to the Philosophy of Science about these questions. The web page you refer to has a very simplistic potted summary of what each of these philospohers believed. Have you read the writings of Popper and Kuhn? I have - I did it as part of an Honours course in Political Science 30 odd years ago - which looked at the subject from a Humanities rather than a Science perspective. It seems you and your cohorts (I think someone identified your philsophy as Naive Realism or something like that) want to believe that in Science, that is what you can sense, observe and measure (data), you have all the answers and my point was that Science does not have all the answers and doesn't even have all the questions and that one thing we need to do as human beings is accept the limits of our knowledge and understanding and embrace that uncertainty. You may find this odd but I think in some respects as a scientist you have a disadvantage when it comes to thinking about the Philosophy of Science because you are carrying a lot of scientific baggage which inhibits your ability to look at it objectively and you are not used to philosophical inquiry.
DJS - you are certainly of one mind with Oubliette - your statement about 'an ability to think rationally, objectively and leave emotion, feelings, prejudices and beliefs out of our decision making process' smacks of hubris. You are kidding yourself if you think that you leave emotion, feelings, prejudices and beliefs out of your decision making processes. You wouldn't be human if you did that. In fact what I have observed is that you, Oubliette, DJS, cofty, Viviane all have a very emotional attachment to your mindset and your sense of superiority about that mindset.
I am not disparaging critical rational thinking and backing up assertions with evidence - this is something that I rate very highly and try to apply myself as best I can. What I challenge is the belief that you are totally rational and therefore superior.
Cheers Frazzled
P.S. I have gone through to check for typos to avoid any cheap shots in that regard
-
cofty
It seems you and your cohorts ..want to believe that in Science.. have all the answers
Nobody thinks that.
What I challenge is the belief that you are totally rational and therefore superior.
No human is totally rational. Some of us try our best, some celebrate woo.
You are attacking a strawman Frazzled.
P.S. I have gone through to check for typos to avoid any cheap shots in that regard
Cheap shot.
VG was boasting about her education, and attacking others in a post that was full of spelling and gramatical errors. I simply pointed out the irony.
-
DJS
Fraz,
Of course we all use emotions and feelings. We are human. You are missing my point. My point of this is: where along the continuum do you make important decisions? What is the engine driving your train and the fuel in it?
I have an aggressive strong personality sometimes, fueld by fire. I have to control that or the results won't be to my liking. Fraz, anyone who routinely makes important decisions or reacts - or firmly fixes their mindset - based primarily on emotions, feelings, beliefs, prejudices, thoughts or shallow one dimensional knowledge based on those emotions and beliefs will unlikely fare as well as individuals who have learned to control those emotions and who require a much higher standard, such as scientific, empirical data, before they act or formulate views. This is true whether the subject is religion, vaccinations, evolution, plane crashes or economics.
That mindset trapped us all Fraz. The Borg's leaders trapped us with 'new light,' playing on our emotions and feelings, for example. We believed based on a one dimensional knowledge that did not take into account any opposing views. How did that work out for us? Even now, the same mindset traps many. I routinely see OPs based on someone's prejudiced, emotional, reactionary views where all they did was seek out confirmation bias to find the very first article that seemed to support them. That's sad. Such individuals will remain trapped and I would bet we would see it in their general lack of accomplishments. Few if any are likely in upper ior middle management for example, and I would bet there is a strong correlation with that mindset and household income.
The scientific method can break us all out of that trap. That's all we are saying. It isn't a panacea. We won't all become Spock or Data. Or millionaires.
-
Frazzled UBM
cofty -
It seems you and your cohorts ..want to believe that in Science.. have all the answers
I accept that the statement above may have been a bit of an overstatement. I was responding to the OP which seems to glorfiy the scientific method and while I get where you guys are coming from in terms of juxtaposing scientific method and thinking with the ridiculous claim by the WBTS that every unsupported assertion they make is 'The Truth', I am just trying to urge a bit of caution and suggest that scientific method and thinking may also have limitations.
My challenge to the belief in rationality was directed at DJS and derived directly from what he had said.
DJS - I agree with what you have written except I would say that it is critical thinking that frees us from the tyranny of the likes of that perpetrated by the WBTS. Scientific method is a form of critical thinking but there are others.
Cofty - my comment about the typos was not directed at you but at Oubliette because he had left them in when quoting me but used '(sic)' to highlight them. I saw it as part of the generally patronizing tone of his response to me.
-
cofty
I am just trying to urge a bit of caution and suggest that scientific method and thinking may also have limitations.
To be fair Oubliette did say the following in his OP
"We can—and should—talk about what it can and cannot allow us to know"
Serious question Frazzled, what do you consider to be the most significant limitations of science?
-
Viviane
You may find this odd but I think in some respects as a scientist you have a disadvantage when it comes to thinking about the Philosophy of Science because you are carrying a lot of scientific baggage which inhibits your ability to look at it objectively and you are not used to philosophical inquiry.
That is extremely odd. I would suggest reading some books by Lawrence Krauss, Brian Cox or Leon Lederman. They spend a great deal of time thinking precisely about such things. In any event, what sort of baggage are you envisioning that would prevent them from being objective?
You wouldn't be human if you did that. In fact what I have observed is that you, Oubliette, DJS, cofty, Viviane all have a very emotional attachment to your mindset and your sense of superiority about that mindset.
Sense of superiority? Please do not ignorantly pretend to know anything about how I view others.
I do love science. It's how we learn new things. I think what aren't getting is that the reason so many people love science is precisely because it IS a meat grinder of ideas. Only the best ideas with evidence survive. Personal bias is removed over time, it's open to all who wish to learn and it is absolutely bursting with creative thinking and imagination.
-
metatron
Read Feyerabend. I enjoy a good hand grenade tossed into neat theory. Every so often, it's needed.
metatron
-
Phizzy
"Personal bias is removed over time, it's open to all who wish to learn and it is absolutely bursting with creative thinking and imagination."
Spot on ! and until we find a better method of expanding our knowledge and understanding then it is simply the best that we have.
If someone thinks the scientific mind is somehow inhibited, I would suggest a regular reading of New Scientist magazine, bursting with new ideas, along with new research and discoveries, evey single week. It also publishes many ideas and findings that chllenge the established ones.