John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  147

  Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

  if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

  followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Here's a great interview about philosophy of science:

  https://youtu.be/cG3sfrK5B4E
  
• 
  147

  Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

  if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

  followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  • John_Mann has stated that his faith rests in part on three specific Roman Catholic miracles. The details of what actually happened on those occasions is a matter for scientific investigation.

  Not exactly miracles:
  

  1- a personal paranormal experience.
  

  2- St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  3- Pascal's wager.
• 
  147

  Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.

  if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

  followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

  Here's a link from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):

  https://www.aaas.org/page/what-scientism

  If you ask for scientific evidence to God then you are a follower of scientism.

  The scientific method is limited by definition to the physical world and God is metaphysical.

  You're trying to comb your hair with a chainsaw.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Eliminative materialism is an example.

  Consciousness cannot be scientifically detected so it does not exist at all.

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Sorry cofty but scientism is well defined by philosophers of science.

  I mentioned two famous philosophers of science who wrote about scientism.

  Scientism is bad as creationism.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.

  Followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.

  And deny any existence that cannot be scientifically detected.
• 
  98

  Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  evolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

  creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.

  just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  "Scientism" is a word used by silly people who fear evidence.

  Silly people like Karl Popper and Hilary Putnam?

  So do you deny the very existence of scientism?

  
  
  
• 
  51

  Why are the evolutionist's so upset?

  by Esse quam videri in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.

  it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.

  should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  First you use a hypothetical for your argument, saying that if a hypothetical AI was strong enough Law would accept it. (I'm sure most here will not accept a hypothetical as main argument.)

  Really?

  The very structure of logic is made by the pair if-then. If (premise) then (conclusion).

  Especially my case where I argue consciousness is unique to humans beings. I can only use an "if" premise to develop a scenario where non humans have consciousness. So I used some likely entity as a possibility.

  Where's exactly the logical flaw?

  Then you use an example of intelligent primate legal status cases failing to prove another point. Seems contradictory. Primates are very smart. Primates are also biological; some would say this is a huge difference.

  That's a mess of argument.

  What is contradictory (assuming you have the same cofty's position) you saying Law don't assume metaphysical positions and after you post a link about rivers granting legal rights as persons! This doesn't sound metaphysical to you?

  And the links are weird and strict exceptions.

  In a statement, the government said research had clearly established cetaceans are highly intelligent and sensitive, and that dolphins "should be seen as 'non-human persons' and as such should have their own specific rights."

  As Cupp expressed to me via email, he’s advising against reading too much into this before we know more about what the judge was thinking:

  The judge may merely want more information to make a decision on the legal personhood claim, and may have ordered a hearing simply as a vehicle for hearing out both parties in more depth. These kinds of claims are new terrain for judges, and we should be cautious about drawing conclusions as to judicial intent based on the format used to schedule hearings.

  Do you really think these cases are related to animals and rivers having consciousness just like humans? The judicial intent was based on indistinguishable consciousness between rivers, animals and humans?
  
  
  
• 
  51

  Why are the evolutionist's so upset?

  by Esse quam videri in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.

  it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.

  should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  One could argue that law is used to preserve our own species. Almost all living species put their own kind first. This is a function of evolution; nothing metaphysical. Everybody "thinks" their own "team" is superior. Superiority can be biased and subjective.

  Law it's not biased a priori towards humans.

  If a hypothetical strong AI could pass the Turing test our Law would accept it.

  Actually there are political groups that want to give legal status to some primates. But always failing...

  
  
  
• 
  51

  Why are the evolutionist's so upset?

  by Esse quam videri in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.

  it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.

  should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  The Law does not comment on whether humans have a metaphysical dimension. Stop playing word games.

  Law consider humans different from animals.

  Biologically we're are indistinguishable from animals. There are even similar (or superior) brains in nature (dolphins and whales).

  So if not by biology then by what exactly Law consider humans not only different but also superior?

  Can't you see Law use metaphysical criteria? Things like oath and testimonial evidence for instance.

  Can't you see you being a follower of Scientism you can't even imagine humans using other methods than science to understand the universe?