Quote :

"They are just like the old mythological tales of how the gods first created the world, except that they are backed up by evidence."

Really bad analogy here.

12/2/2006 10:41:40 AM

McDanger, you are fooling no one but yourself.

Good luck with that.

12/2/2006 1:18:03 PM

Quote :

"Then your point is rather.....pointless. Even IF you are right (and I do not believe that you are) and concepts such as the atom are "metaphysical projections," so what? They are helpful models that we use to explain the behaviors of the universe that we happen to witness. Are you saying that the concept of an atom is metaphysical because we cannot see it with the naked eye alone? Are you saying that gravitational fields do not exist simply we cannot see the fields?"

Do they explain the behaviors very well? I think you don't really know all of the problems that concepts like 'natural laws' have caused, at least for consistency's sake. Even at the moment, there isn't a definition for natural law that hasn't met an early death by counter-example. Not to say that something won't, but the concept itself is presenting philosophers of science with a strange puzzle.

The model of matter itself doesn't do anything to explain the occurances we see. Everything in physics, chemistry, and otherwise can be known in terms of apparent forces (meaning that which we perceive and observe -- yes, including through equipment). It's not metaphysical because we cannot see it with the eye alone, but because in this sense they're unverifiable projections we make (much like we fill in the concept of a coherent, unified 'ego' when observing the multiplicity of forces in our own minds).

Not sure what point you're trying to make about gravity. Of course I think gravity is real, just drop something. Could anything be more apparent?

Quote :

"THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THESE MODELS. We can't see these things unaided, we have to observe/measure them indirectly. Even then, all we're really measuring is their effects, which may or may not be visible to our naked senses (you can't see a gravitational field, but you see that mass is attracted to other mass). So what if things such as the atom or "forces acting at a distance" are self-imposed illusions? They are illusions that help our limited minds comprehend how things really work. They are just like the old mythological tales of how the gods first created the world, except that they are backed up by evidence."

Hmm. This is a really bad analogy, as Blind Hate pointed out before me. You're proving my point for me here -- that science (physics in specific in this case) should stick to explanations and predictions of the apparent forces involved. Nothing about any of this really suggests there are agents following laws. In fact, believing that this is so doesn't really help us understand what's at play, either. Materialism wasn't always at play in science, and a variety of explanations could be consistent. The problem is when people simply assume that this metaphysical view is right, and try to convert others to it. This is when it becomes a pseudo-religious discussion.

Quote :

"That's about as far as I can argue, because I'm honestly not 100% sure what you're getting at. I think you're saying that scientists shouldn't try to come up with explanations for stuff if it isn't immediately perceivable or even immediately intuitive. But that's a pretty stupid point to argue from because science is all about trying to model and explain the unseen. And honestly, I am starting to get the impression that this thread really is one big philosophical circle-jerk."

Ahhh a beautiful ending to your post. Allow me to explain your strategy:

(1) Cordially explain that you're not sure what I'm getting at.
(2) Strawman me.
(3) Insult the discussion and throw your hands in the air, implying victory.

I'm saying scientists shouldu come up with explanations for apparent forces and phenomenal reality. If there's any associated phenomenon with something, there should be an attempt to calculate it and understand it. What you fail to understand is that materialism/mechanism is a philosophical viewpoint, not so much a scientific one.

Quote :

"McDanger, you are fooling no one but yourself. Good luck with that."

On the contrary, you're the only one fooling yourself. Again, like I said, you probably cannot even comprehend the point I'm trying to make. Thus, your snarky little one liners. Good luck insulting anything you don't understand that contradicts your worldview. It must suck to be such an anti-intellectual little pissant.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 3:08:55 PM

i think you can't comprehend what 99.9999% of scientists do from day to day

12/2/2006 3:26:07 PM

At what point do I insult constructive science?

12/2/2006 3:27:55 PM

if all you're doing is saying "bad scientists are bad" then what the fuck is the point?

and the name of the thread is "much of science is religion in disguise." that implies more than just a small handful of whackjob scientists.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 3:29:42 PM

Quote :

"and the name of the thread is "much of science is religion in disguise." that implies more than just a small handful of whackjob scientists."

I used quotation marks which implies that I provide my own definition. In the section entitled "definitions" which you likely glossed over, I provide exactly what I'm talking about. Then again, that assumes you read and understood the first post carefully, which obviously, you did not.

Quote :

"if all you're doing is saying "bad scientists are bad" then what the fuck is the point?"

It's a bit different than "bad scientists are bad." There's a common conception that lots of scientific projections are in fact scientific, and they're not. What I'm advocating is the end of using science as a mouthpiece for any metaphysical view. It's being used as a cudgel against the God idea in general, which is just fucking silly.

12/2/2006 3:34:41 PM

is all you're saying that people use science in place of religion to push/support their ideals? if so, i said that in the first couple posts i made yesterday.

and if you're saying something is a "scientific projection", then it's scientific. some projections, however may claim to be scientific, yet are not "scientific projections" because they're not based on sound scientific reasoning

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 3:41 PM. Reason : 're]

12/2/2006 3:38:25 PM

No, they use science as a basis for justifying their religious/moral beliefs, and then push whatever agenda that is. It's a -bit- different.

Quote :

"and if you're saying something is a "scientific projection", then it's scientific. some projections, however may claim to be scientific, yet are not "scientific projections" because they're not based on sound scientific reasoning"

Metaphysical projection would be a better way to phrase what I meant, I'll say that instead from now on.

12/2/2006 3:41:43 PM

your thread title is misleading and your point is fairly obvious.

12/2/2006 3:43:49 PM

The title isn't misleading to those who have read the first post carefully. Have you?

Also the point isn't so obvious, as many people cannot possibly consider that materialism/mechanism might not be the case. They think this is fully supported by actual science, and that anybody who doesn't believe it is an idiot. This is much like all widely held philosophical views throughout history.

12/2/2006 3:45:31 PM

^you're so fucking full of yourself, dude.

12/2/2006 4:19:53 PM

Quote :

"Ahhh a beautiful ending to your post. Allow me to explain your strategy: (1) Cordially explain that you're not sure what I'm getting at. (2) Strawman me. (3) Insult the discussion and throw your hands in the air, implying victory."

Conceded on all points (though I honestly wasn't deliberately going for a strawman attack), except for that bit about "implying victory." I didn't imply that I won the argument; I haven't won anything. In fact, it occurred to me that I myself have also been participating in what I labelled "a philisophical circle-jerk." It's pointless for me to argue with you, if only because I admittedly don't fully understand what you're trying to say.

But regardless of whether or not people read your first post, what the hell kind of reaction do you expect from most people if you title the thread as "science is religion in disguise?" You say that you define your terms, yet you ought to know that people are not initially going to take it in the way that you mean it. That's like me saying "lowering a cup of water's temperature to zero degress Celcius is going to melt it, and by melting it I mean freezing it." I may have defined my terms, but once people see that first part of the sentence they're going to think I'm a fucking idiot.

And with that, I'm forfeiting this argument. Interpret it as a declaration of defeat if that suits you.

12/2/2006 4:57:06 PM

Quote :

"^you're so fucking full of yourself, dude."

Mmm... still haven't read the post, have you? I don't know why expecting you to read and comprehend the issue at hand is being full of myself. Perhaps you simply have an inferiority complex. Either way, I don't feel like being your shrink.

Quote :

"Conceded on all points (though I honestly wasn't deliberately going for a strawman attack), except for that bit about "implying victory." I didn't imply that I won the argument; I haven't won anything. In fact, it occurred to me that I myself have also been participating in what I labelled "a philisophical circle-jerk." It's pointless for me to argue with you, if only because I admittedly don't fully understand what you're trying to say."

I'm not really sure what parts of it are obscure, so I'd rather we start to talk about that instead of whatever else. I'd really like to get a good discourse out of it, and if I'm not explaining my points well enough then that's a problem I should rectify.

Quote :

"But regardless of whether or not people read your first post, what the hell kind of reaction do you expect from most people if you title the thread as "science is religion in disguise?" You say that you define your terms, yet you ought to know that people are not initially going to take it in the way that you mean it. That's like me saying "lowering a cup of water's temperature to zero degress Celcius is going to melt it, and by melting it I mean freezing it." I may have defined my terms, but once people see that first part of the sentence they're going to think I'm a fucking idiot."

I'm using normal definitions, I'm just clarifying what I mean by my claim. Expecting people to read my first post before replying is reasonable.

Quote :

"And with that, I'm forfeiting this argument. Interpret it as a declaration of defeat if that suits you."

Come on, don't do that. You're one of the few people actually attempting to discuss this.

12/2/2006 5:27:38 PM

you've accused everyone who wanted to discuss with not having read your first fucking post. and you're suprised that no one is sticking around

12/2/2006 5:31:54 PM

No, I ask people to read the first post when their rants betray a complete ignorance of its content.

It's not even that long. If there's any misunderstandings about the points I made, then those should be discussed first.

12/2/2006 5:33:58 PM

and you're still doing it. have fun talking to yourself, jackass.

12/2/2006 5:34:40 PM

Look, if you could even so much as properly represent the view, I wouldn't have a problem with discussing this. However, until we flatten out your misunderstandings, there's not much to discuss.

Again, don't project your inferiority complex onto me, thus making it a superiority complex. It's not "acting superior" to point out that the person I'm arguing with is misrepresenting or misunderstanding a position.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 5:37 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 5:36:40 PM

Quote :

"and you're still doing it. have fun talking to yourself, jackass."

12/2/2006 5:42:14 PM

You're the one who can't get over yourself. Keep making excuses not to engage the issue.

12/2/2006 5:43:03 PM

i engaged in your discussion and then you accused of not having read the original post. this happened TWICE. so believe what you will. perhaps no one is talking about this because there isn't all that much to talk about.

12/2/2006 5:47:36 PM

I have no idea what to say. You obviously didn't read it carefully, because you highly misrepresented my position (you were even ignorant of the fact that I split science into two senses). No idea what to say here, I'm at a loss. Maybe if you read it without an attitude we could discuss it better.

12/2/2006 5:49:28 PM

shut the fuck up, douchebag.

12/2/2006 5:50:50 PM

as much as i regret it now, i read your pointless first post yesterday and today. oh yeah and:

Quote :

"and you're still doing it. have fun talking to yourself, jackass."

12/2/2006 5:53:57 PM

There's nothing funny about the fact that you didn't understand the post, but I have to admit that your insecurities are giving me a chuckle . Thanks, 10/10.

12/2/2006 5:54:14 PM

Quote :

"and you're still doing it. have fun talking to yourself, jackass."

12/2/2006 5:55:14 PM

At this point I'd like to ask you to leave the thread so that anybody who might want to actually address the issue won't have to be drowned out by your anti-intellectual temper tantrum.

12/2/2006 6:02:19 PM

Quote :

"and you're still doing it. have fun talking to yourself, jackass."

Worst thread ever.

Your lack of intelligence is so overwhelming, it reminds me of Gamecat trying to arrive at an actual point, but instead just resorting to asking people to do more research than he did in the first place.

You are fooling no one but yourself buddy.

[Insert canned 'you cannot comprehend my post' post]

12/2/2006 6:07:59 PM

I like how it's my intelligence that's at question here, when you're the one unable to understand my point.

This is just like any other point in history -- challenge a widely held philosophical belief and the rage comes out of the woodwork. Religious indignation.

12/2/2006 6:11:23 PM

You are either a terrible writer, an obvious troll, or both. However, I will never tarnish your image with praise of intellect. Fear not.

Regardless of my personal opinion towards your short-comings, science is about discovery. Your talking point stands in the way of it. You are a disgrace to yourself, and science.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 6:19 PM. Reason : -]

12/2/2006 6:15:56 PM

You just lack a healthy dose of skepticism, critical thinking, and historical context. This is probably how arguments with people who supported hylomorphism went.

Quote :

"Regardless of my personal opinion towards your short-comings, science is about discovery. Your talking point stands in the way of it. You are a disgrace to yourself."

Read...the...first...post...

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 6:18:51 PM

You seem to lack a lot of understanding of true intelligence. True intelligence is being able to break down the very complex into simple terms. All I see you doing is making things more complex, because you cannot break them down simply. This tells me that you are an idiot box, who lacks wisdom, and uses Microsoft Word and Google "Define:" at the ready.

I read your post, and you claim that science has been tarnished by religion, and some of the great leaps of faith within science are similar to the leaps of faith within religion. This is not a point at all. True science is the ability to accept all conclusions at face value, work through them, and arrive at a conclusion. Not to remove certain elements from the equation simply because you deem them unworthy. To do so, is very stupid... hence my opinion of you.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 6:25 PM. Reason : -]

12/2/2006 6:22:19 PM

Look, I tried to break this down as simply as I could. I didn't say it was an easy thing to "get."

However, because it isn't, simply calling me stupid and then proceding to rip on the idea (without understanding it) is ridiculous.

Quote :

"I read your post, and you claim that science has been tarnished by religion, and some of the great leaps of faith within science are similar to the leaps of faith within religion. This is not a point at all. True science is the ability to accept all conclusions at face value, work through them, and arrive at a conclusion. Not to remove certain elements from the equation simply because you deem them unworthy. To do so, is very stupid... hence my opinion of you."

This is what I'm talking about! Okay let's work with this.

I'm not asking them to remove anything from the equation -- the apparent forces used in science now aren't dependent upon metaphysics (thank god).

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 6:23:52 PM

It is very easy to get. You either lack the ability to translate effectively, or are willfully confusing in order to troll. Regardless, I'm not impressed at all.

12/2/2006 6:27:27 PM

Are you so sure you got it? It doesn't seem like it just yet. I'm objecting to the supposition of a 'doer' behind each act, which isn't exactly the easiest thing to get behind. It's also not like this is a totally original idea either, moreso the application in this case.

12/2/2006 6:28:47 PM

Many things cannot be proven or even verified as remotely true. I hope to God this isn't your talking point.

12/2/2006 6:32:52 PM

No, it isn't -- Hume already took care of that.

The point is that these metaphysical suppositions don't have any impact on our understanding or the data itself. It's an awful lot like religion.

12/2/2006 6:33:46 PM

That doesn't make it a waste of time. What is your point?

Also, who are you to say they have no impact? Many things remain unseen and unmeasurable.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 6:36 PM. Reason : -]

12/2/2006 6:34:23 PM

Doesn't make what a waste of time? Science itself, or positing metaphysical things and then claiming its science?

12/2/2006 6:36:19 PM

I don't think many scientists consider "metaphysical science" the same as "science" in general. Hence, meta, meaning higher. Regardless, all types of science play an important role in discovery.

I'll give you another lesson later on, I'm off to engage in civil discourse with people known as friends.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 6:42 PM. Reason : -]

12/2/2006 6:41:31 PM

Quote :

"I don't think many scientists consider "metaphysical science" the same as "science" in general. Hence, meta, meaning higher. Regardless, all types of science play an important role in discovery. I'll give you another lesson later on, I'm off to engage in civil discourse with people known as friends."

Any science that claims the reality of physical substance (in the sense of some 'inaccessible' thing-in-itself, also known as the atom, spoken of as a real thing) is making a metaphysical claim. Anything above phenomenal physics.

Oh hey when you're out having fun, look up metaphysics. You might find it illuminating, I'm not sure you understand what we're talking about.

12/2/2006 6:48:41 PM

I know exactly what it means, but again, you are simply saying that it holds little validity, and I wholeheartedly disagree because I believe it is fundamental to discovery (no matter if it is correct or not).

You couldn't make a point if your life depended on it.

Have fun convincing yourself you are an intellectual, I'm out.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 7:02 PM. Reason : -]

12/2/2006 6:59:59 PM

he's saying scientists shouldn't inject religion into scientific things

and dogmatists shouldn't inject science in to religious things

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 7:09 PM. Reason : i think]

12/2/2006 7:07:02 PM

Quote :

"I know exactly what it means, but again, you are simply saying that it holds little validity, and I wholeheartedly disagree because I believe it is fundamental to discovery (no matter if it is correct or not). "

You claim I couldn't make a point to save my life, and I can see why you think this. As long as you continue to misunderstand my points at a fundamental level, it will continue to look like this.

Metaphysics holds great validity, I think -- there are plenty of advantages to metaphysical inquiry. However, none of this is science.

^ Said probably the most appropriate thing in the whole thread. This is my entire point. If you think that metaphysics are essential to scientific discovery, then I don't know what to tell you other than to study metaphysics and intellectual history.

12/2/2006 7:10:20 PM

Quote :

"he's saying scientists shouldn't inject religion into scientific things and dogmatists shouldn't inject science in to religious things"

Why not?

^

The only points you have made thus far are that no one can understand you. I already outlined a brief summary of your thoughts, and I disregarded them as foolish in essence. You may think people should seperate lines of thinking, because you are close-minded, but that will never have any effect on science in general. Science is all about discovery, and once you start alienating lines of thinking, you start closing doors.

You say religion should stay out of science, and science should stay out of religion. That's your opinion, and it matters very little in the grand scheme of things. Very few people will agree with this sentiment, because is lacks foresight, ambition, and a desire to learn beyond what is readily available. Believe it or not, people want to believe in something, even scientists.

Basically, your mantra is lazy. If that's good enough for you, so be it. I believe in opening doors, because many things in science are unmeasurable and remain to be seen. It is obvious that you have a healthy disdain for religion, but so what? I think you just like to attack religion because of your own insecurities about it, and for your love of trolling.

Quote :

"If you think that metaphysics are essential to scientific discovery, then I don't know what to tell you other than to study metaphysics and intellectual history."

Metaphysics is simply thinking that is abstract or beyond the physical. Have you ever heard of Einstein? You know what, forget it. You are clearly unprepared for me.

Again...

Quote :

"Regardless, all types of science play an important role in discovery."

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 8:56 PM. Reason : -]

12/2/2006 8:29:43 PM

Quote :

"Mechanism, what. Belief in matter as the sole substance, and an account of the world in terms of this metaphysical concept. A projection of the subject upon reality. Supposition of the 'atom' as the actor, the 'doer' of phenomena. Doctrine that the atom, the agent of nature follows 'natural laws,' and would have a measure of freedom in the case of a suspension of such. In short, the religious projection of physics -- science infected with moral residue."

I don't get this at all. How is the belief in atoms a metaphysical concept? How does it a religious projection physics? The evidence for atoms, and that they obey certain physical laws, is extremely well documented.

Quote :

"In this light, the argument of atoms versus souls should be labeled under its proper heading: ‘religious debate.’"

I don't get this either. Atoms vs. souls? Is someone contesting that atoms exist? Does the existence of atoms somehow suggest souls don't exist?

12/2/2006 8:37:42 PM

**Disclaimer** I read the first couple posts and saw people bitchin about McD's original post, so I just hit the 'reply' button **/Disclaimer**


i couldn't agree more that science has become a religion for some. the notion of an "atom" isn't inherently "religious" in itself. it could serve as little more than a 'placeholder' for something that we don't fully comprehend yet, and I have little trouble with that, because sometimes placeholders are helpful. They can help get us past some things without worrying about those details so that we can study the interaction of the 'placeholder' with other things.

The problem, of course, is when we forget that something is a placeholder and we go off spouting out new "discoveries" about something that we don't even know exists.

Where I think science has become a religion, though, is how many people view it. People view it simply as "the truth," a concept which couldn't be more dogmatic if it tried. When faced with challenges, whether it be from "scientists" or people of a differing perspective, the common term we hear is "but it's not scientific," as if that somehow means anything. A similar objection was often made against scientists in the infancy of the field: "But that's not what the Bible says." The symmetry of these two statements should be obvious.

The scientific method has been invaluable to aiding our understanding of the universe, but only when it has been truly applied. It's only been useful when people have used it to explain some already observable phenomena and it's been wholly useless and even destructive when used to further someone's agenda. Often, these agendas have hindered the objectivity of the scientist, causing them to miss important factors in their experiments or possibly even to intentionally ignore them.

12/2/2006 9:05:14 PM

Quote :

"Isn't it qualified once I gave a critique of science in the pejorative sense?"

Eventually, maybe, but in the opening paragraph few people are gonna know what you're talking about when you speak of "metaphysical projections" and scientists being unscientific.

Quote :

"This takes a bit of tracing the root of the mistake. I'm supposing that the need to suppose a subject behind an action supplants apparent reality with a sketch."

What counts as a "subject" here?

Quote :

"Borrowed a philosophical convention I like."

Yeah... this is the sort of thing we're talking about when we accuse you of trying to be too intellectual. It's like you're writing a grandiose paper to impress some old windbags who'll think you're smart if your writing is complex.

Quote :

"Science in the pejorative sense and science in the constructive sense. I split up science into science 'done right,' and the science abused in propping up somebody's preferred metaphysics."

But you often speak of science and related words without saying which version applies.

Quote :

"When a subject views reality, he projects the idea of a coherent subject, or agent, behind the apparent forces he perceives."

Still don't know what the subjects are. And is the viewing subject the same type of subject as the coherent subject?

Quote :

"The concept is -- if there are truly natural laws, then the suspension of these laws would allow the atoms to act freely (i.e., not in accordance with those laws)."

point?

Quote :

"The part where agents follow a law. The concept of natural laws, which reality 'conforms' to."

Still not seeing morality in that.

Quote :

"A catholic priest would be an islamic skeptic."

Gotcha. Still don't like the description though. Don't know why it even needs to be a definition.

Quote :

"A symbol of mechanism versus theism in modern debate. Atheists versus theists, in many senses."

I understood that soul represents religion, but I wasn't expecting atoms to represent bad science.

Quote :

"What I can tell you is that we consist of apparent forces. I see no real reason to explain myself in a coherent notion, in the sense that I have some metaphysical being that acts as a subject."

You lost me.

12/2/2006 10:48:54 PM

good thread

i disagree completely however with the original post's assertions

science does not ask you to have faith that atoms exist (for example)
it proposes that they do exist and the reason for this proposition is because of VERIFIABLE observations

religion says god exists
when you ask "why" or "how do you know" the response is "i have faith"
when you ask what the faith is based on, the general responses are "because i do" or "because of the bible" or "how couldn't there be"

and as i usually do in forums like these i'll close with:

Faith drives a wedge between ethics and suffering. Where certain actions cause no suffering at all, religious dogmatists still maintain that they are evil and worthy of punishment (sodomy, marijuana use, homosexuality, the killing of blastocysts, etc.). And yet, where suffering and death are found in abundance their causes are often deemed to be good (withholding funds for family planning in the third world, prosecuting nonviolent drug offenders, preventing stem-cell research, etc). This inversion of priorities not only victimizes innocent people and squanders scarce resources; it completely falsifies our ethics. It is time we found a more reasonable approach to answering questions of right and wrong.
-Sam Harris

12/3/2006 2:41:37 AM

so your saying that you're an


..athiest.


right?

12/3/2006 3:42:28 AM