Sweet -- this is the kind of discussion I was looking for. Okay, now to respond. . .

DireWolf2:

Quote :

"I already outlined a brief summary of your thoughts, and I disregarded them as foolish in essence."

You'll have to demonstrate that they're foolish. Simply disregarding them isn't going to work.

Quote :

"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."

No, science is all about following the scientific method. Making statements about the generally untestable should never fly.

Quote :

"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."

I don't claim that scientists shouldn't have a religion. I'm claiming that it should have nothing to do with the practice of science.

Quote :

"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."

You need to draw a distinction between "unseen" and "does not have an associated phenomenon." As far as the rest of your post goes, I have my own objections to religion. It's not just to be a prick -- I'd much rather believe in eternal life and sunshine, trust me.

Quote :

"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."

That's a bold claim, that I'm unprepared for you. However, if you're going to claim such a thing, it would behoove you to at least have the correct definition of what you claim to know. Being blatantly wrong and then claiming you're above me right afterwards is a delightful bit of self-ownage.

In case you were wondering, you should ditch the X-Files definition of metaphysics while we're discussing actual philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, a branch of philosophy dedicated to explaining the nature of the world. Not so much in what we perceive or see, but in what this might be ('in itself', beyond the phenomena), how this might be.

ShivanBird:

Quote :

"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."

Because what's accesible to us through science is the phenomena, not the purported 'thing-in-itself.' Everything we perceive is a phenomenal object. The atom is a metaphysical object -- it's what scientists of some sorts believe is 'behind' the phenomena of the atom. It's what 'causes' the phenomena we see.

Quote :

"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?"

Depends on your philosophy I suppose. Plenty of atheists try to use mechanism/materialism as propped up by some 'science' to disprove God.

burr0:

Quote :

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

Please don't do that -- go back and check it out, we'll appreciate your input more once you do that.

Quote :

"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."

It's religious because it stems from the religious mind-set. The desire to project our findings into metaphysical discovery.

Quote :

"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. "

I agree that truth is a slippery subject. The best science can get, in my opinion, is well-justified belief. But that's okay, science does a great job with phenomenal reality (which is, for most people, the only thing that will ever matter).

Quote :

"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."

Extremely well said.

Back to ShivanBird:

Quote :

"What counts as a "subject" here?"

Anything that performs an action. That is, any object that is the cause for something we perceive in the sense that it's acting, and that acting produces phenomena.

Quote :

"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."

Get over it. I'm using a convention I like. Are you going to get angry if I abbreviate 'if and only if' as 'iff,' or if I abbreviate 'is by definition' as '=df' ?

Quote :

" Still not seeing morality in that."

\

Because as opposed to forces being calculable because certain forces in fact act in certain ways, the supposition of 'laws' introduces the concept of a discrete metaphysical subject. Subjects and laws are largely an ancient moral conception. This is all stemming back to the idea that there are coherent metaphysical subjects, and laws which they may or may not obey.

Quote :

"You lost me."

Sorry, let me restate. What I can tell about the world around me is that there are forces apparent to me. However, I don't see any particular reason to ascribe these apparent forces to a cause in the sense that there is a metaphysical actor. When I look inward to myself, I don't think the ego is much more than a useful fiction. What I do know, for sure, is that there are a variety of competing, dynamic forces that make up my mind. To suppose that the encapsulation of this is in anyway a unified, single subject doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Or at least, it doesn't involve the least amount of assumptions. I feel like people take this unified self fallacy and project it elsewhere -- suddenly, every force requires a unified subject behind it.

Cherokee:

Quote :

"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"

I do not contest that there are apparent forces that fit the atomic model perfectly. However, anything could be filled in for atoms and physics would still work. Remember to make a distinction between what would take the place of the atom in physics, and the atom itself. Matter would be a better way to state this.

In fact, this makes me think that I haven't been clear enough at all -- let me try to clarify. The atom as would be used in physics clearly exists in the phenomenal sense -- it is an apparent force. However, the notion I'm objecting here to is that of matter -- that an actual, real atom that's material sits behind this notion.

12/3/2006 5:44:53 AM

Unfortunately there are several definitions for metaphysics, so just get used to that. I won't ditch my definition simply because you have a longer, more-detailed one, I already know what it encompasses and feel no need to justify myself to the likes of someone who thinks writing more words equates to intelligence. Therefore, to me, you seem like an idiot who writes a novel after I break something down to it's core, and then retroactively claim that I have been self-pwnt. Terrible troll. Anyway, great minds like Einstein have thought outside the box or in the abstract and discovered very important scientific breakthroughs. I support metaphysics wholeheartedly, and if religion inspires scientists to discover, so be it. Now, if you stand in the way of these great minds, simply because of their religious undertones, then this makes you a total fool.

[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 8:30 AM. Reason : -]

12/3/2006 8:24:46 AM

Well if you want to use a silly definition of metaphysics then go ahead. I, however, use the commonly agreed-upon definition. If you told people that Einstein did metaphysics because he 'thought in the abstract,' then you'd be laughed at if that person knew what they were talking about. There's a standard definition for it, used in philosophy. This is what I was trying to clue you in on earlier when you demonstrated that you did not know it. However, rather than taking my advice and going to learn it, you decided to ride out your ignorance because its something you perceived as up for debate. As much as you hate it, you'll have to concede to me on at least this point.

12/3/2006 10:47:01 AM

Quote :

"Are you going to get angry if I abbreviate 'if and only if' as 'iff,' or if I abbreviate 'is by definition' as '=df' "

yes.

this whole thread screams of "hey look at me, i'm a philosophy major!!!! doesn't that make me smart?!"

where's that santana quote about dancing about architecture. . . it seems like it might apply here.

12/3/2006 11:53:49 AM

Doesn't everybody know 'iff'? Oh look it's you again. By now, many other people have responded and participated, but you're still here shitting up stuff. Why don't you take a crack and understanding and participating.

Then again, if you can't hang with the content, then criticize the form. That makes sense. At least it gives you something to say.

[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2006 12:33:05 PM

^first off: you asked the question. i responded. why do you ask questions if you don't want people to actually talk about them

here's my two cents:

as long as there ARE scientists out there who are itching to prove people wrong through the scientific method then the motivations behind the science people put forth is fairly irrelevant. plenty of science begins as an inkling or claim that has no basis in the current physical world as it could be proven at the time. to suggest an idea that is deemed "unprovable" currently is not harmful. what is harmful is if people take this conjecture as truth.

12/3/2006 12:49:43 PM

Hey you offered an actual opinion! Awesome -- let me address it.

Quote :

"as long as there ARE scientists out there who are itching to prove people wrong through the scientific method then the motivations behind the science people put forth is fairly irrelevant. plenty of science begins as an inkling or claim that has no basis in the current physical world as it could be proven at the time. to suggest an idea that is deemed "unprovable" currently is not harmful. what is harmful is if people take this conjecture as truth."

See, now I can work with this. Let's stick to this sort of discourse and I'll let the other stuff you've said in this thread slide.

Anyway, I think the thing I'm trying to point out here is that some of this 'bad science,' so to speak, doesn't use the scientific method, or is a misapplication of it. I have no problem if science makes claims or intuitive leaps that are currently untestable, but the problem comes when they make claims that are theoretically untestable. This is to say, it's a problem when scientists make claims that are untestable no matter what sorts of equipment you're given. The issue of what the underlying substance (if one exists) actually is, is a philosophical question. Science, which deals with the world of phenomena, cannot touch this issue and still remain science.

12/3/2006 12:56:11 PM

and i'm saying as long as there are other scientists and people have free though,what does it matter? they will call the 'bad scientists' out.

can't people make their own judgments about what is and isn't science? does there have to be a clear boundary between scientists and philosophers? was the philosophy that einstein occasionally spouted in some way harmful to scientific OR philosophical community?

12/3/2006 1:03:05 PM

Quote :

"and i'm saying as long as there are other scientists and people have free though,what does it matter?"

Oh boy, that opens up a can of worms (free will). This is actually tangentially related to our topic at hand, but I won't dig into it too much because it would be a massive derail. Free will supposes a coherent subject in the self, which leads to all of the stuff I've been criticising.

Quote :

"they will call the 'bad scientists' out."

This is what I'm doing.

Quote :

"can't people make their own judgments about what is and isn't science?"

No, absolutely not. Why, you ask? Because the term 'science' carries a lot of weight. It's lofty, like the term 'knowledge' or 'truth.' There's a measure of trust associated with the field, and a measure of built-in justification to things we consider science. Perhaps if science weren't a political tool, or if it didn't carry political weight.

Quote :

"does there have to be a clear boundary between scientists and philosophers? was the philosophy that einstein occasionally spouted in some way harmful to scientific OR philosophical community?"

There's no clear boundary between philosophers and scientists, but there is a clear boundary between metaphysics and physics.

Einstein's philosophy wasn't harmful -- it was cute, if nothing else. People who are big Spinoza fans are always interesting.

[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2006 1:21:06 PM

The only thing I concede is continuing a fruitless conversation with a basketcase and dictionary fiend. There are several ways of defining a single word, and no particular definition is completely correct. What you say is "widely-accepted" is probably completely incorrect anyway. It sounds to me like a standard red-herring. You are incapable of having civil discourse, because you only want to have a conversation about what you define as important. I don't care what you think is worthy of discussion, and I doubt anyone else here does either, because you have proven that you are not credible and dim-witted. Einstein did think outside the box, everyone knows this, and no one would laugh at that, except a self-important delusional quack.

12/3/2006 1:37:15 PM

Quote :

"The only thing I concede is continuing a fruitless conversation with a basketcase and dictionary fiend."

Dictionary freak? Yeah if by dictionary you mean correctness. See how this re-defining game works? This is why we have definitions in the first place. I might be more sympathetic to you if 'metaphysics' weren't the title of one of the most famous works in all of human history, written by Aristotle. That'd be a good place to at least see what the topic is aimed at.

Quote :

"There are several ways of defining a single word, and no particular definition is completely correct. What you say is "widely-accepted" is probably completely incorrect anyway. It sounds to me like a standard red-herring. You are incapable of having civil discourse, because you only want to have a conversation about what you define as important. I don't care what you think is worthy of discussion, and I doubt anyone else here does either, because you have proven that you are not credible and dim-witted."

You just owned yourself. Go look up some links on the web about metaphysics and you'll see that it's not 'thinking outside of the box' by definition. It includes a rather specific list of topics and concerns, and a specific aim. You are wrong.

Quote :

"Einstein did think outside the box, everyone knows this, and no one would laugh at that, except a self-important delusional quack."

Of course he thought outside of the box. That doesn't make his metaphysics or philosophy into science. It also doesn't make his incredible intuitive leaps in science into metaphysics or philosophy.

Newton thought outside of the box too. Newton also did a lot of alchemy, does that make his alchemy good science, or does that make his science alchemy?

12/3/2006 1:48:57 PM

Quote :

"Because what's accesible to us through science is the phenomena, not the purported 'thing-in-itself.'"

What do you mean? We've split atoms, we've fused atoms, we've even taken pictures of them with the Scanning Tunneling Microscope.

Quote :

"Everything we perceive is a phenomenal object. The atom is a metaphysical object -- it's what scientists of some sorts believe is 'behind' the phenomena of the atom. It's what 'causes' the phenomena we see."

So what are you suggesting we have in place of this supposedly "metaphysical" concept?

Quote :

"Depends on your philosophy I suppose. Plenty of atheists try to use mechanism/materialism as propped up by some 'science' to disprove God."

Sure, but atoms vs. souls? I don't see that. Mechanism vs. souls, absolutely. Not atoms. I've heard people argue against the Big Bang, black holes, and evolution, but never against atoms.

Quote :

"Because as opposed to forces being calculable because certain forces in fact act in certain ways, the supposition of 'laws' introduces the concept of a discrete metaphysical subject. Subjects and laws are largely an ancient moral conception. This is all stemming back to the idea that there are coherent metaphysical subjects, and laws which they may or may not obey."

I don't see the distinction, Yes, calling these things "laws" gives it that flavor, I guess, but that's about it.

Quote :

"I do not contest that there are apparent forces that fit the atomic model perfectly. However, anything could be filled in for atoms and physics would still work. Remember to make a distinction between what would take the place of the atom in physics, and the atom itself."

Uh, if the structure of the model is the same, calling an atom a l33t h4x0r and the electron his ski11z wouldn't change anything. And the model would have to have the same structure, otherwise it wouldn't fit with observed reality.

Quote :

"No, absolutely not. Why, you ask? Because the term 'science' carries a lot of weight. It's lofty, like the term 'knowledge' or 'truth.' There's a measure of trust associated with the field, and a measure of built-in justification to things we consider science. Perhaps if science weren't a political tool, or if it didn't carry political weight."

Scientists fight over what is and what isn't scientific all the time. Just look at James Gardner's Selfish Biocosm theory. It's actually rather difficult to decide what conforms to the scientific method.

12/3/2006 1:49:07 PM

^ I have to direct you to a post later in the thread where I begin to clarify my point a little bit better. Of course there are observed atoms that we've worked with. That doesn't mean there's an 'atom in-itself.' To make this easier, I restated it as saying -- just because there is the phenomena associated with atoms doesn't mean there is actual matter.

Quote :

"Sure, but atoms vs. souls? I don't see that. Mechanism vs. souls, absolutely. Not atoms. I've heard people argue against the Big Bang, black holes, and evolution, but never against atoms."

Berkeley and Nietzsche are two prominent examples.

Quote :

"I don't see the distinction, Yes, calling these things "laws" gives it that flavor, I guess, but that's about it. "

It's precisely the flavoring to which I object. This same flavoring is what drives people to search for the 'thing-in-itself' using phenomena.

Quote :

"Uh, if the structure of the model is the same, calling an atom a l33t h4x0r and the electron his ski11z wouldn't change anything. And the model would have to have the same structure, otherwise it wouldn't fit with observed reality."

Nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when the assertion digs beyond the phenomena. This is when many inaccuracies come into play.

Quote :

"Scientists fight over what is and what isn't scientific all the time. Just look at James Gardner's Selfish Biocosm theory. It's actually rather difficult to decide what conforms to the scientific method."

Sure and this is an important debate -- but it doesn't make metaphysics into science.

12/3/2006 1:53:59 PM

When will this paper be ready for us to read?

12/3/2006 2:00:28 PM

Quote :

"To make this easier, I restated it as saying -- just because there is the phenomena associated with atoms doesn't mean there is actual matter."

Who cares, and what difference does it make?

Quote :

"Berkeley and Nietzsche are two prominent examples."

Both of them lived well before the era of the bomb.

Quote :

"Nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when the assertion digs beyond the phenomena. This is when many inaccuracies come into play."

So what are these problematic implications of atoms following physical laws?

12/3/2006 2:02:45 PM

Quote :

"When will this paper be ready for us to read?"

The end of May, actually. I got 750 bucks to write about this bullshit, can you believe it?

This thread is helping me work out the exact thesis I'd like to approach, and is proving helpful when people stick from flaming.

GoldenViper:

I would quote your stuff directly but it's easier for me to apply to your post as a whole. It makes a huge difference whether there's actual matter behind it. Not to the calculations, of course, but to the validity of the claims we make. If scientists claim that the only 'scientific' solution is to accept the reality of matter, they're flat out wrong.

This is what happens when atheism gets a hold of science and wields it like a cudgel. You have people claiming the only substance is matter, and therefore all religions are bunk. This is a horrible misapplication of science.

The point you made about the bomb -- think about it for a minute, does it matter? What claims can physics make except phenomenal claims? You can't demonstrate to me that it's truly this philosophical construct of 'matter.' The bomb has just proven that the forces in play react a specific way under specific circumstances. The bomb proves 'A is A.'

12/3/2006 2:11:37 PM

I haven't owned anything but you this entire thread. You provide no insight at all, only cut and paste definitions because you cannot reword them for yourself. You aren't a scholar, you just think you are by changing other people's wording around and labeling it your own. The problem with you is that you cannot make a point, and when someone does make a point, you say it lacks clarity, when in actuality, you are the one that lacks clarity.

12/3/2006 2:28:12 PM

Quote :

"If scientists claim that the only 'scientific' solution is to accept the reality of matter, they're flat out wrong."

What do you mean by this? Certainly, just by looking at quantum theory, one can see that it might well be vastly more complicated than only matter. You even have stuff such as David Bohm's holographic theory. Quantum theory alone has made simple mechanism seem a lot more dubious.

12/3/2006 2:36:59 PM

Quote :

" haven't owned anything but you this entire thread. You provide no insight at all, only cut and paste definitions because you cannot reword them for yourself."

Oh really? Because to me, here's what you've done:

(1) Didn't read the thread.
(2) Finally DID read the thread, but didn't understand it.
(3) Finally got it, but then proceded to skirt the issue.
(4) Assert incorrect things about fields of study. You didn't know what metaphysics was until I pointed you at a direct definition of it. There's little excuse for this seeing as how you have google at your fingertips.

I don't understand your hostility, but simple angry rhetoric is going to convince nobody but yourself.

Quote :

"[The problem with you is that you cannot make a point, and when someone does make a point, you say it lacks clarity, when in actuality, you are the one that lacks clarity./quote] If I lack clarity, or if you perceive me to, then point out the exact point in question. I'd like to clarify. [quote]You aren't a scholar, you just think you are by changing other people's wording around and labeling it your own."

I'm not passing off any of the underlying epistemological (you want the actual defintion or are you going to make one up?) points as my own. I'm attempting to apply them in a certain way. I also have an objection to the sets of points I've been making in this thread, which I'm currently fleshing out.

See, that's the great thing. Legitimate objections do exist to what I've said. However, your babblings are far from it. All you've done is display ignorance of my points, ignorance of basic definitions, and then declare victory and that I'm an idiot. To discredit anything I've said, you have to make a structured, sound argument. However, you don't even have enough information to get off of the ground. Your argument is a big 'am i rite, guyz!?' which appeals to the current intuitions that are in fashion.

GoldenViper:

Quote :

"What do you mean by this? Certainly, just by looking at quantum theory, one can see that it might well be vastly more complicated than only matter. You even have stuff such as David Bohm's holographic theory. Quantum theory alone has made simple mechanism seem a lot more dubious."

It's been a long time since I read the holographic theory, but if I recall properly (and if I don't, please be sure to correct me), it would certainly etch out a lot of the concerns I've had here. It seemed to me to be a lot closer to explaining things in terms of apparent reality rather than some underlying substratum such as matter, in some senses a rejection of objective reality in the sense that mechanism or materialism would sell it (I agree with something like this). Again, I'm rusty on it, so please point out if I got it wrong and you don't have to be gentle.

Part of my point is that, matter is not as 'obvious' as some would have it. It's a philosophical position like any other, and will likely give way to another explanation at another point. Additionally, the new metaphysical explanation will not change the perceptions of the phenomena. Whether the holographic theory is true or not, it doesn't change the inverse square calculation of gravity.

[Edited on December 3, 2006 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2006 3:31:07 PM

Quote :

""they will call the 'bad scientists' out." This is what I'm doing."

you haven't done anything but say that "bad scientists" are bad. you've called no one out in particular besides a mention of the name "richard dawkins" which you didn't support any further than saying his name. maybe if you were to support your argument with something more than your own words, it would carry more weight.

12/3/2006 3:48:42 PM

Quote :

"matter is not as 'obvious' as some would have it"

Are you going to actually say how it isn't? This whole thread seems to be more about questioning our entire reality, the entire conscience of man, itself a grand philosophical exercise, as some sort of smoke screen at which to launch shots at what we know as science.

12/3/2006 4:04:32 PM

Quote :

"It's been a long time since I read the holographic theory, but if I recall properly (and if I don't, please be sure to correct me), it would certainly etch out a lot of the concerns I've had here. It seemed to me to be a lot closer to explaining things in terms of apparent reality rather than some underlying substratum such as matter, in some senses a rejection of objective reality in the sense that mechanism or materialism would sell it (I agree with something like this). Again, I'm rusty on it, so please point out if I got it wrong and you don't have to be gentle."

No, that sounds about right. (Though it has been a little while since I've read anything of Bohm's.) Bohm did there was an underlying order, but that we didn't yet understand it.

I agree that science hasn't proved that only matter exists. Indeed, quantum theory undermines that position. I'm not sure agree that science can't or shouldn't influence metaphysics. Many scientific theories have profound and often very interesting metaphysical implications. I don't see this as a bad thing.

12/3/2006 4:18:44 PM

Quote :

"you haven't done anything but say that "bad scientists" are bad. you've called no one out in particular besides a mention of the name "richard dawkins" which you didn't support any further than saying his name. maybe if you were to support your argument with something more than your own words, it would carry more weight."

On the contrary, the entire thread is involved in explaining the sorts of errors I'm out after and why I disagree. Part of what's worrysome, that I've gone over a lot, is how quite a lot of atheists level objections against theism under the auspices of science (like I said, in some cases this makes sense -- in others, it surely doesn't).

Quote :

"Are you going to actually say how it isn't? This whole thread seems to be more about questioning our entire reality, the entire conscience of man, itself a grand philosophical exercise, as some sort of smoke screen at which to launch shots at what we know as science."

Again, it's important to understand that I'm not attacking science in this thread. I'm attacking a subsection of scientists who believe that they can make metaphysical claims using science as justification.

But this thread does question our entire reality. The reason why it's not so obvious is, there's only apparent forces at play in our day-to-day reality. Seeing as how we only interact with phenomena (and can only interact with phenomena), why assume there's more there than what's fully apparent?

Quote :

"I agree that science hasn't proved that only matter exists. Indeed, quantum theory undermines that position. I'm not sure agree that science can't or shouldn't influence metaphysics. Many scientific theories have profound and often very interesting metaphysical implications. I don't see this as a bad thing."

Surely what we perceive influences our views of the absolute nature of things (or lack thereof). However, surely you can see my objection to science stepping 'out of bounds' to further a religious or social agenda?

12/3/2006 4:47:26 PM

scientists are people. they can have views that are irrational and unscientific. only fools would take them as anything other than that.

12/3/2006 4:59:14 PM

Quote :

"Seeing as how we only interact with phenomena (and can only interact with phenomena), why assume there's more there than what's fully apparent?"

Isn't that one of the main arguments atheists use?

Quote :

"However, surely you can see my objection to science stepping 'out of bounds' to further a religious or social agenda?"

I guess so.

12/3/2006 5:07:40 PM

Quote :

"Oh really? Because to me, here's what you've done: (1) Didn't read the thread. (2) Finally DID read the thread, but didn't understand it. (3) Finally got it, but then proceded to skirt the issue. (4) Assert incorrect things about fields of study. You didn't know what metaphysics was until I pointed you at a direct definition of it. There's little excuse for this seeing as how you have google at your fingertips. I don't understand your hostility, but simple angry rhetoric is going to convince nobody but yourself."

(1) I read the thread from the very beginning.
(2) I always understood your meaning.
(3) I always knew what metaphysics was and is, you just didn't like the brevity of my definition.
(4) I like how you emulated me with your last line. I told you earlier in the thread that you were fooling no one but yourself. If you can't be creative and clever on your own, I guess simply steal it.

12/3/2006 5:51:38 PM

Quote :

"scientists are people. they can have views that are irrational and unscientific. only fools would take them as anything other than that."

It wouldn't be a problem if they weren't using their clout as scientists to push these views (or if others weren't using them in this fashion).

Quote :

"Isn't that one of the main arguments atheists use?"

Apparent but still existing in itself, is what most atheists believe I think (if they even consider substance I'm not sure, but I suggest if you asked most atheists if they believed in substance they'd say yes).

Quote :

"(1) I read the thread from the very beginning. (2) I always understood your meaning. (3) I always knew what metaphysics was and is, you just didn't like the brevity of my definition. (4) I like how you emulated me with your last line. I told you earlier in the thread that you were fooling no one but yourself. If you can't be creative and clever on your own, I guess simply steal it."

Well certainly none of your previous posts have betrayed a strong understanding of the material.

Oh, and #4 sounds like a great argument for every thinker to start from complete scratch. No influences allowed!

12/3/2006 8:52:54 PM

Quote :

"Well certainly none of your previous posts have betrayed a strong understanding of the material."

Should someone with so little understanding of sub-atomic and quantum physics, who berates those disciplines at the same time, really be talking?

12/4/2006 7:35:12 AM

I don't have a complete expert's view of quantum -- I have, I'd say, a decent understanding of it. However, one thing I do know about it, and science in general, is that it rests firmly upon phenomena.

Also, if you think I'm actually berating the disciplines, you should reread the thread. I don't understand how anybody could carefully read the thread and take away that conclusion at this point. Most reputable physics makes great predictions and gets it right according to the phenomena quite a lot. I like this, I think it's a valuable and worthwhile thing to be doing.

The thing I find a little silly, however, is when metaphysics is labeled as science. This usually happens when people with social and political agendas get together and use science to justify their unverifiable world view.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 9:27 AM. Reason : .]

12/4/2006 9:19:59 AM

There is a Southpark about this that actually supports your point fairly well. I agree with what you are saying about atheists using "science" to push their own religion, when it is actually not based on anything that is or could be proven. The matter argument however, opens up a whole different and metaphysical discussion though. If I understand correctly your argument about the atom is that there is possibly no actual matter in the conventional way of thinking about it, only energy or actions which produce perceivable and testable phenomena? Im no expert on the subject, but I believe that this is actually what string theory is based on, that atoms do not actually exist as matter, but as vibrational one dimensional (therefore matterless) "strings" which are the result of a very large number of dimensions being twisted upon themselves, or something to that effect (if anyone knows a lot about it, enlighten me.) If this is the case, then string theory would support what you are arguing, correct?

12/4/2006 4:48:06 PM

(he doesn't know)

12/4/2006 4:55:07 PM

AJ10QK -- Let me work through what you said, it's remarkably apt.

Quote :

"If I understand correctly your argument about the atom is that there is possibly no actual matter in the conventional way of thinking about it, only energy or actions which produce perceivable and testable phenomena?"

Well, sort of, but this is along the right lines. As opposed to energy or actions that produce the phenomena, simply the phenomena themselves. A collapse of metaphysics altogether, just a view of apparent reality without the concept of any inaccessible being producing phenomena in a causal sense.

Quote :

"Im no expert on the subject, but I believe that this is actually what string theory is based on, that atoms do not actually exist as matter, but as vibrational one dimensional (therefore matterless) "strings" which are the result of a very large number of dimensions being twisted upon themselves, or something to that effect (if anyone knows a lot about it, enlighten me.) If this is the case, then string theory would support what you are arguing, correct?"

If string theory were to simply replace matter with strings that do the causing of phenomena instead, then it wouldn't support what I'm arguing. I'm arguing against the concept of some underlying substratum or subject that is 'causing' the phenomena, and arguing just for the phenomena themselves.

Quote :

"(he doesn't know)"

Welcome back, please feel free to contribute.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2006 5:24:22 PM

i was just clearing stuff up for the guy. you don't know about string theory. you already stated as much yourself.

and it's amazing how everyone who agrees with you obviously gets it. and everyone else is missing the point somehow.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2006 5:28:49 PM

Quote :

"i was just clearing stuff up for the guy. you don't know about string theory. you already stated as much yourself."

I understand the basics of what string theory states, but I sure as hell don't understand the mathematics behind it. This has nothing to do with evaluating its specific claims as physical or metaphysical, however.

Quote :

"and it's amazing how everyone who agrees with you obviously gets it. and everyone else is missing the point somehow."

It's possible to get it and disagree with me. Please shock me and do this.

12/4/2006 5:33:22 PM

i've already given my piece.

and you said the guy was "incredibly apt" regarding that guy's posts and then proceeded to tell him he how he was wrong. the people who disagreed with you, you just immediately say that they obviously didn't read the original post.

12/4/2006 5:40:57 PM

Quote :

"There is a Southpark about this that actually supports your point fairly well. I agree with what you are saying about atheists using "science" to push their own religion, when it is actually not based on anything that is or could be proven."

At least in "The God Delusion" Dawkins seemed to be saying that the "God hypothesis" is a claim that shouldn't be free from evidence based criticism (that is, science based). He then pointed out that science tended to favor the null result. Theologians, of course, don't really accept such evidence-based criticism so Dawkins spent a lot of time discussing the philosophical arguments against God's existence. At least in this part of the book Dawkins didn't say anything that hadn't been said a million times before. His later chapters on why people believe in religion and the harm religion does are probably more controversial.

I guess you're referring to the Dawkins+Cartman as Buck Rogers episode of South Park. The point of that episode seemed to be that Dawkins is a dick and that even in the absence of religion people will find ways to be nasty to each other. Since Dawkins makes the latter point in "The God Delusion" my impression was that Parker/Stone just hadn't bothered to read the book.

12/4/2006 6:53:53 PM

Quote :

"i've already given my piece. and you said the guy was "incredibly apt" regarding that guy's posts and then proceeded to tell him he how he was wrong. the people who disagreed with you, you just immediately say that they obviously didn't read the original post."

Of course I say that they obviously didn't read the post -- they didn't. This has nothing to do with them disagreeing with me -- owes to the fact that they didn't carefully read the original post. I can understand some errors in interpretation, but others were so egregious that I could only conclude that it wasn't handled with the proper care. In many ways, I'm giving those people the benefit of the doubt.

12/4/2006 8:06:41 PM

Ok I think I fully understand your point now, and while as I stated before I do agree that scientists who try to use "science" to disprove God are twisting it, I disagree about the lack of matter hypothesis. It is possible, of course, but to me it seems that all the evidence we have collected up to this point would advocate that matter does in fact exist as a "subject" and not just the phenomena. While your point is valid, I see it as being a point that is just as unprovable as God or any religion, one that takes a faith in it being right. All the evidence "good" science has collected so far points to the fact that there is some sort of subject, even if it is one dimensional, which causes the phenomena of matter. In order to make your point a valid scientific argument (which is probably not the point of a philosophy paper), I feel that you would need to put forth any evidence in the form of a law or mathematical equation that supports the hypothesis that matter does not exist. Until anyone can make such an assertion, accepting the atom and the forces behind it as being created by a subject is the most SCIENTIFIC explanation, although I feel that this says nothing about the implications of there being or not being a God.

On a side note, what you are arguing seems to me similar to the idea that we are all in some sort of computer program, and that we do not actually exist, but simply follow all the laws of the program. Correct me if there is anything wrong with that analogy

*Forgot about the Southpark thing. I didnt see the point of that as Dawkins being a dick so much as the fact that trying to replace religion with science is pointless in that eventually science and religion will become so intertwined that both are pointless, as some questions do not have a "most logical" answer, only several that are logical. I havent read Dawkins book so I cant argue with his direct points, I was just saying that that episode in general reminded me of this thread.



[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 9:49 PM. Reason : forgot about Southpark]

12/4/2006 9:37:21 PM

^

Nice.

12/4/2006 9:49:58 PM

This thread, ironically, is irrefutable proof that there is no god.

12/4/2006 9:56:51 PM

well played, sir

12/4/2006 10:03:11 PM

Quote :

"It is possible, of course, but to me it seems that all the evidence we have collected up to this point would advocate that matter does in fact exist as a "subject" and not just the phenomena."

What is this evidence? In fact, of what nature would this evidence be?

Quote :

"In order to make your point a valid scientific argument (which is probably not the point of a philosophy paper), I feel that you would need to put forth any evidence in the form of a law or mathematical equation that supports the hypothesis that matter does not exist."

I'm not sure what you mean. You're asking me to come up with a mathematical proof that matter doesn't exist? How would I use mathematics to delve into the unobservable (that which has no phenomenal content)? First of all, a good definition of matter to refute doesn't exist, save for "physical substance that causes the apparent phenomena."

Even attempting to do what you're asking would defeat the very purpose of the paper -- that math and phenomenal observations can't be used to make determinations about metaphysical matters. This is to say, in order to operate on anything with a law or mathematical equation I would have to give it phenomenal relevance. This means I would have to attack the metaphysical concept of matter through phenomena -- the very thing I object to doing.

Quote :

"Until anyone can make such an assertion, accepting the atom and the forces behind it as being created by a subject is the most SCIENTIFIC explanation, although I feel that this says nothing about the implications of there being or not being a God."

You have so far failed to say how the phenomena suggest there is concrete matter behind it, a "thing-in-itself." All of the evidence you've suggested simply draws the conclusion that there is an apparent reality to these forces, not a reality in itself.

Therefore, I don't see how any metaphysical argument can be scientific.

Quote :

"On a side note, what you are arguing seems to me similar to the idea that we are all in some sort of computer program, and that we do not actually exist, but simply follow all the laws of the program. Correct me if there is anything wrong with that analogy"

What's wrong with it is, there's still something working as the 'actor' behind such a computerized world. Something causing the apparent forces. I'm suggesting the apparent forces just are.


Edit:

Hey sarijoul, check out the guy I'm discussing this with. He's doing what you couldn't.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 10:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2006 10:06:52 PM

Man, all you do is resist answering the questions, and instead just ask more. You are a real disappointment McDanger. Respect your superiors.

[Edited on December 4, 2006 at 10:12 PM. Reason : -]

12/4/2006 10:11:55 PM

The nature of the questions encourage me to participate in the concept I deem fallacious. I offer an argument to this end. You offer childish rhetoric.

12/4/2006 10:15:43 PM

i don't know why i didn't realize earlier that he's not looking for people disagree with him. he's looking for people to make sense out of his own words and bolster his arguments with their intellect so that he might struggle through his half-assed attempt at a paper. i mean it really explains everything about this thread.

12/4/2006 10:17:46 PM

I've seen it all along. He's a transparent quack, see my previous posts for details.

12/4/2006 10:22:56 PM

Do you suggest that because I don't roll over when somebody makes a point? I offer my response to them, because I don't feel as if their points trump mine. This is less because of some misplaced sense of superiority and more because I haven't identified an argument that fits against mine just yet. Once I do, I'll have another opinion instead. I have a few objections to my view already in mind, but I haven't decided whether they serve to topple it just yet.

12/4/2006 10:24:00 PM

Your lip services are serving no one but your own delusions McDanger.

12/4/2006 10:25:25 PM

Hey, I'm not saying I hit everything on the head here. I'm asking you to demonstrate how I haven't. So far, you've been unable to do so. You just sit there and crow about how you're great, and I'm an obvious idiot. However, you offer nothing compelling.

12/4/2006 10:26:23 PM

According to YOU.

hahaha

12/4/2006 10:27:43 PM