Quote :

"It's a working assumption of science."

exactly. no one claims to be able to prove it.

why don't you at the very least present some examples of this great problem you're arguing against.

12/6/2006 6:04:26 PM

Quote :

"exactly. no one claims to be able to prove it."

Science can't "prove" anything. This has already been addressed, many many many years ago.

No one claims able to prove it, but they still think it's there.

Quote :

"why don't you at the very least present some examples of this great problem you're arguing against."

Materialism and science are big parts of many arguments for atheism. I object to the use of science's good reputation (that it makes good projections) for the ends of a metaphysical assertion.

12/6/2006 6:07:21 PM

Quote :

" Huh? Gravity is observable. Drop something. You are experiencing the phenomenon of Earth's gravity right now because you're not floating around."

Exactly, but as you would argue this experience is only the phenomena. We do not know that the actual force exists, we can only see that it is acting in an extremely uniform way and thus assume that a force is there. There is no way for us to "see" the force of gravity, only to observe its effects. If for some reason one day a person dropped something and it simply floated (without any force to counteract gravity, of course), the whole idea of gravity would then have to be tossed out, considered unscientific, and a new theory would have to be formed. In the same way there is no way for us to "see" the "thing in itself" of matter, only to observe its effects which act in a uniform way (the way of the atom). If for some reason one day the atomic model stopped functioning, we would have to rethink our assumption that there is an actual "thing in itself" of matter and form some sort of new theory. Thus, in order to argue that saying the existence of matter is unscientific, you must also agree that saying the existence of an actual force of gravity is unscientific. I agree that it is wrong and unscientific for scientists to say that matter is the ONLY form of matter in the universe, but my point is that it is not unscientific or any abuse of their power to say that it does exist.

*by the way, if you want anyone on this thread to take your argument seriously you really need to post some quotes from an atheist who uses the "scientific fact" that matter exists in order to argue their religion. Try Richard Dawkins, he seems like an idiot.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 6:15 PM. Reason : see *]

12/6/2006 6:10:21 PM

This thread highlights why philosophy majors are not employable.

12/6/2006 6:16:33 PM

Quote :

"This thread highlights why philosophy majors are not employable."

We don't produce much that's directly applicable or exploitable. For the most part, we also aren't pathetic social climbers.

Quote :

"Exactly, but as you would argue this experience is only the phenomena. We do not know that the actual force exists, we can only see that it is acting in an extremely uniform way and thus assume that a force is there."

The force is apparently there -- what you're saying is that we generalize in finding a calculation. That's about right.

Quote :

"If for some reason one day a person dropped something and it simply floated (without any force to counteract gravity, of course), the whole idea of gravity would then have to be tossed out, considered unscientific, and a new theory would have to be formed."

I don't think that's what would happen. What happened would have to be repeatable.

Quote :

"In the same way there is no way for us to "see" the "thing in itself" of matter, only to observe its effects which act in a uniform way (the way of the atom)."

You're observing the uniform actions and events of phenomena of like-kind. The only real cause you could argue for, for the thing-in-itself here is the phenomena, and that's what I'm objecting to.

Quote :

"If for some reason one day the atomic model stopped functioning, we would have to rethink our assumption that there is an actual "thing in itself" of matter and form some sort of new theory. Thus, in order to argue that saying the existence of matter is unscientific, you must also agree that saying the existence of an actual force of gravity is unscientific."

The force is the phenomena, yeah? The "thing in itself" that causes these observable forces is matter.

12/6/2006 6:23:47 PM

Quote :

"You see a phenomenal object that you claim is matter."

So now we're playing some kind of word definition game? What matter is exactly, is rather hard to define. Matter is simply a word that describes well, matter. Non-empty space, whatever the fuck you'd like to call it (A phenomenal object, oh so intelligent one ). I guess we should just pretend it isn't there?

Quote :

"The phenomena are clear and well described in many senses."

Ok so we do know what matter is? My god, what the fuck is your point? You've got to be trolling here.

Quote :

"The force is the phenomena, yeah? The "thing in itself" that causes these observable forces is matter."

I thought you said matter was a phenomenal object. Why would you say the word matter now instead of phenomenal object?

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 7:32 PM. Reason : We're not made of matter, we're made of stuff that isn't matter. See?]

12/6/2006 7:24:12 PM

So has this thread really come down to a discussion of materialism and methodological naturalism (MN)?

Quote :

"http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm How about these people? Trumpeting science as justification for atheism (mind you, mechanistic atheism). Go back and read the first post. I can tell you skimmed through it."

I didn't spend a lof of time on it because it was poorly written. See Shivan's first post.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 9:39 PM. Reason : x]

12/6/2006 9:31:10 PM

after killing some time reading this thread, it appears that if scientists labeled theories as such (read: atom theory, cell theory, etc) despite how widely accepted and built upon they were, this discussion wouldn't have been raised.

12/7/2006 12:30:37 AM

Quote :

"So now we're playing some kind of word definition game?"

No. We're talking about the nature of what you're perceiving. You're perceiving phenomena.

Quote :

"What matter is exactly, is rather hard to define."

Agreed.

Quote :

"Matter is simply a word that describes well, matter."

Circular definitions aren't good for concepts like this.

Quote :

"Non-empty space, whatever the fuck you'd like to call it (A phenomenal object, oh so intelligent one )"

Give me some respect here. The only person talking about intelligence here is you, I don't claim any special status for myself.

Quote :

"I guess we should just pretend it isn't there? "

The apparent force is clearly there. However, when it comes to a metaphysical substance BEHIND it, am I pretending it isn't there or are you pretending it IS there? What evidence would clarify the matter?

Quote :

"Ok so we do know what matter is? My god, what the fuck is your point? You've got to be trolling here."

Many forms of skeptical arguments have been regarded as trolling. However, I'd like to think that you aren't so anti-intellectual as to not give them some time and consideration.

Quote :

"I thought you said matter was a phenomenal object. Why would you say the word matter now instead of phenomenal object?"

Your perception of "matter" in this case (assuming its matter behind the perception) is a phenomenal object.

12/7/2006 1:47:12 PM

Quote :

"No. We're talking about the nature of what you're perceiving. You're perceiving phenomena."

Here you're it seems like you're saying something so obvious that it doesn't need to be mentioned. Could you please explain for me the difference between "matter" and "phenomena?" This is what I mean when I say we're playing a word definition game. That's exactly what this is. It's fucking retarded.

Quote :

"Give me some respect here. The only person talking about intelligence here is you, I don't claim any special status for myself."

The only reason I even made that comment is because you feel the need to correct me for saying the word "matter." What the fuck do you want me to call the stuff? Just because I refer to it as matter doesn't indicate that I think I fully understand it in all aspects. You also come off with this "holier than thou" attitude when you refuse to state your point simply and then tell everyone else that they can't read when they don't fully comprehend your often pointlessly complex statements.

Your argument is so far out there I fail to grasp its point or usefulness.

Quote :

"Circular definitions aren't good for concepts like this."

I mean they aren't particularly good for anything. I think my point was that the word matter doesn't even really have a clear definition when you consider that we don't exactly understand what matter is.

Quote :

"The apparent force is clearly there."

What apparent force are you talking about? Please be more clear with your responses. And just for clarification, what scientific courses have you had on the university level? I just want to know how much overall knowledge you have on the subject to begin with. It just seems like you're making an argument to which most scientists would simply say, "Um, ok....."

Quote :

"Many forms of skeptical arguments have been regarded as trolling. However, I'd like to think that you aren't so anti-intellectual as to not give them some time and consideration."

Here I don't really feel like you responded to my question in the same context in which it was asked. I've given it thought, and I'm not necessarily saying matter exists or does not exist. I'm saying it's a pointless question, and we can't even define what it is exactly. What I can tell you is that in the context of our perceptions and lives, it exists and is useable. To argue otherwise seems like a giant waste of your time. While you're running around tell everyone it isn't there, the rest of the world will probably just continue to use, study, and manipulate it.

What is your alternative suggestion for "matter?" What implications would this have? Like I really have NO clue what your point is.






Ok, now on to some failures that I feel need clarification:

First you say:

Quote :

"You see a phenomenal object that you claim is matter."

Then you say:

Quote :

"Your perception of "matter" in this case (assuming its matter behind the perception) is a phenomenal object."

I think it may work better for you to use simpler vocabulary when trying to explain/discuss a subject with those not in your field of study. Your definition of a phenomenal object seems different in both of these cases. Thus I now don't even have a clear definition of what you feel a "phenomenal object" is. First you say it's an object, then you say it's a perception...

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 3:33 PM. Reason : Why is it unreasonable for me to assume this is trolling?]

12/7/2006 3:20:08 PM

Quote :

"Could you please explain for me the difference between "matter" and "phenomena?" "

Matter would be the underlying cause of the phenomena, the substratum or substance that's causing the phenomena. Phenomena are just perceivable effects, and so a phenomenal object is a bunch of sensory data regarding presumably the same thing.

Quote :

"This is what I mean when I say we're playing a word definition game. That's exactly what this is. It's fucking retarded."

It's not a word definition game.

Quote :

"The only reason I even made that comment is because you feel the need to correct me for saying the word "matter.""

We should be precise with our terms, especially when talking about this sort of issue. What you perceive and "matter" are not synonymous.

Quote :

"What the fuck do you want me to call the stuff?"

Well you can call it matter if you want, but at that point we're talking metaphysics. I don't mind, so much, as long as we realize the scope in which we're operating.

Quote :

"You also come off with this "holier than thou" attitude when you refuse to state your point simply and then tell everyone else that they can't read when they don't fully comprehend your often pointlessly complex statements."

I'm sorry that your inferiority complex makes me seem holier than thou. Simply insisting that people raise any issues of misunderstanding so that I can address them is not holier than thou. Also, trying to clarify somebody else's misuse of a term is not holier than thou either. I don't know why you take this as a personal affront, or why you're so dead-set that I have a superiority complex. Perhaps there's a good shrink I can refer you too.

Quote :

"Your argument is so far out there I fail to grasp its point or usefulness. "

Then raise your questions so that we can address them.

Quote :

"I mean they aren't particularly good for anything. I think my point was that the word matter doesn't even really have a clear definition when you consider that we don't exactly understand what matter is. "

But we understood what is meant by the claim of matter -- that there's a metaphysical actor behind the phenomena we perceive.

Quote :

"What apparent force are you talking about? Please be more clear with your responses. And just for clarification, what scientific courses have you had on the university level? I just want to know how much overall knowledge you have on the subject to begin with. It just seems like you're making an argument to which most scientists would simply say, "Um, ok....." "

The apparent force is whatever phenomena you're experiencing. If you touch the table in front of you, you're experiencing the apparent force of the table.

Quote :

"Here I don't really feel like you responded to my question in the same context in which it was asked. I've given it thought, and I'm not necessarily saying matter exists or does not exist. I'm saying it's a pointless question, and we can't even define what it is exactly. What I can tell you is that in the context of our perceptions and lives, it exists and is useable. To argue otherwise seems like a giant waste of your time. While you're running around tell everyone it isn't there, the rest of the world will probably just continue to use, study, and manipulate it. "

I never argued that concepts such as the metaphysical subject were unnecessary. I think that the belief in the ego as a unified subject, and the notions truth, reality, being, etc are all necessary fallacies. Just because they're necessary for us to interact with the world doesn't mean that they're a fact of existence.

Quote :

"What is your alternative suggestion for "matter?" What implications would this have? Like I really have NO clue what your point is."

I could propose a variety of things, even that there's just the force and nothing "causing" it. The point is, no matter what metaphysical assumption science rests on, it doesn't really matter. Therefore, how can one be more scientific than the other? Science rests on a study of phenomena.

Quote :

"I think it may work better for you to use simpler vocabulary when trying to explain/discuss a subject with those not in your field of study. Your definition of a phenomenal object seems different in both of these cases. Thus I now don't even have a clear definition of what you feel a "phenomenal object" is. First you say it's an object, then you say it's a perception..."

While I realize that everybody's not in my field of study, I've tried to clarify some of these terms. Additionally, it's not like you don't have any online resources. It took me under 2 minutes to go to wikipedia, type in "phenomena," and yield this result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena

It's not such a bad place to get on track. What's hard to understand about a "phenomenal object"? When you look at a cup, you see the image of the cup. This is a phenomenal object, or a construct of phenomena in your mind. The object you observe is phenomenal in nature, because you get all of your information about everything through the senses.

12/7/2006 5:00:48 PM

you've yet to provide any examples of this problem of people using their role as a scientist as authority to push a metaphysical agenda. i'm still waiting for it.

12/7/2006 5:03:04 PM

Quote :

"you've yet to provide any examples of this problem of people using their role as a scientist as authority to push a metaphysical agenda. i'm still waiting for it."

I've provided examples of movements using science, and perhaps even evidence of scientists becoming atheist in certain numbers to further their goals. Richard Dawkins uses his authority as a scientist to push a metaphysical agenda. He might revert to using philosophical arguments, but he argues from his basis in evolution.

If you want me to find an article stating "Scientists accept matter!" then I'm not going to find anything for you. However, you can go ask any scientist you'd like if they believe in the existence of matter and they'd tell you that they do.

I can point you to a point in the world literature where people were afraid that a rejection of materialism would result in throwing out physics, if you'd like.

12/7/2006 5:05:41 PM

so you don't have any examples.

12/7/2006 5:10:54 PM

Look, read what I just wrote. The only people you're going to fool by harping on that (and I know you're not fooling yourself) are the people that want to see my argument go down in flames.

As soon as science throws its lot in with a specific set of metaphysics (which it has -- materialism is a starting axiom of science without necessarily needing to be) it allows people to get a hold of it to make metaphysical claims. I've shown that. I've also shown one prominent example (Dawkins) who obviously tries to play off of his role and credibility as a scientist in pushing an atheist agenda mainstream.

12/7/2006 5:12:49 PM

but you haven't. you've just said his name and what he does. you've given no ACTUAL examples. just your words

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2006 5:20:04 PM

Quote :

"The only people you're going to fool by harping on that (and I know you're not fooling yourself) are the people that want to see my argument go down in flames."

Nobody wants to see your argument go down in flames, because nobody even knows exactly what your argument or point is. This just seems even more like trolling...

Quote :

"I don't know why you take this as a personal affront, or why you're so dead-set that I have a superiority complex. Perhaps there's a good shrink I can refer you too."

I think that's the first time I've ever suggested that you came across as having a holier than thou attitude. It was only in the context of this thread and was actually speaking about a specific set of statements (The ones about not reading your thread). I did not state that you had a superiority complex, let alone indicate that I was "dead-set" on it. You're either trolling, or you're the one who need to see the "shrink" (Psychologist might be more appropriate).

Quote :

"What's hard to understand about a "phenomenal object"?"

Nothing is inherently hard to understand about it. The fact that you used it in two different ways using two different definitions for it is what I had trouble understanding.

Quote :

"I never argued that concepts such as the metaphysical subject were unnecessary. I think that the belief in the ego as a unified subject, and the notions truth, reality, being, etc are all necessary fallacies. Just because they're necessary for us to interact with the world doesn't mean that they're a fact of existence."

I didn't say any of those were "facts of existence." Re-read my post.

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 5:31 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2006 5:20:05 PM

Quote :

"but you haven't. you've just said his name and what he does. you've given no ACTUAL examples. just your words"

Would you like me to pick up a copy of the God Delusion for you? Or direct you to his website? You can do this on your own, stop trolling me to do your homework for you. I'm not making an outrageous claim that requires a lot of digging to find out about. If you want Dawkins' opinion it's quite easy to find, and it's quite easy to infer that he's using his clout as a scientist to push this agenda.

Quote :

"Nobody wants to see your argument go down in flames, because nobody even knows exactly what your argument or point is. This just seems even more like trolling..."

On the contrary quite a few people got it. Would you like to clarify anything?

Quote :

"I think that's the first time I've ever suggested that you came across as having a holier than thou attitude. It was only in the context of this thread and was actually speaking about a specific set of statements (The ones about not reading your thread). I did not state that you had a superiority complex, let alone indicate that I was "dead-set" on it. You're either trolling, or you're the one who need to see the "shrink" (Psychologist might be more appropriate)."

Well I guess, being holier than thou, I should suggest that you participate in the topic and ask me to clarify any unclear points you have.

12/7/2006 5:29:04 PM

Quote :

"The apparent force is whatever phenomena you're experiencing. If you touch the table in front of you, you're experiencing the apparent force of the table."

Wow. Just wow. Who fucking cares? I guess you want everyone to write "apparent force" instead of "force" on any scientific paper or calculation.

Apparent newtons, apparent horsepower. We need to get on that asap because we might be wrong, it might not be real, oh shit!

Quote :

"I could propose a variety of things, even that there's just the force and nothing "causing" it. The point is, no matter what metaphysical assumption science rests on, it doesn't really matter. Therefore, how can one be more scientific than the other? Science rests on a study of phenomena."

I've always thought of matter as some kind of packet of energy, since it can in certain circumstances "convert" to energy (positron + electron). I mean I'd imagine nuclear physicists/engineers (Or MSE) and the like understand it a hell of a lot better than you do as a philosopher. Not only that, but once again, what does this imply? What is the point of this "theory?" Who is this thread directed to specifically?

Quote :

"What you perceive and "matter" are not synonymous."

Would you care to explain the difference and how it is you know or even think you know this to be the case? One other thing, the word matter simply represents what we "percieve" as matter. Green is a word that represents something "percieved" too, I don't call it "apparent green." Once again, this is a definition game. I think most scientists wouldn't disagree with what you're saying. But they're not going to change all their terminology just because you think saying "matter" implies a full understanding of it.

Quote :

"Well I guess, being holier than thou, I should suggest that you participate in the topic and ask me to clarify any unclear points you have."

I'll assume this was serious.. Have you read any of my posts? I have asked you to clarify things in pretty much every single one.

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2006 5:34:03 PM

I just called...











to say...











I LOVE YOU

12/7/2006 6:02:34 PM

why is this thread still going? it's like one big circle jerk.

12/8/2006 6:16:00 AM

Quote :

"why is this thread still going? it's like one big circle jerk."

I think you answered your own question.

12/8/2006 3:47:46 PM

Let me try something...

Quote :

"But they're not going to change all their theologyterminology just because you think saying Jesus"matter" implies a full understanding of himit."

...hey!!! It works. This thread does go around in circles!

12/8/2006 4:18:45 PM

Quote :

"...hey!!! It works."

It fails on so many levels.

12/8/2006 5:00:35 PM

Didnt read it.

A+ effort by sarijoul on page 5.

12/8/2006 9:54:02 PM

Quote :

"Wow. Just wow. Who fucking cares? I guess you want everyone to write "apparent force" instead of "force" on any scientific paper or calculation. Apparent newtons, apparent horsepower. We need to get on that asap because we might be wrong, it might not be real, oh shit!"

I'm not really arguing for that -- what I'm arguing for is people using science to back up specific metaphysical claims. I understand science is a lot easier to do when you just use the terms they use -- I don't really object to that.

Quote :

"I've always thought of matter as some kind of packet of energy, since it can in certain circumstances "convert" to energy (positron + electron). I mean I'd imagine nuclear physicists/engineers (Or MSE) and the like understand it a hell of a lot better than you do as a philosopher. Not only that, but once again, what does this imply? What is the point of this "theory?" Who is this thread directed to specifically?"

Yeah, they'd better understand these sorts of things than I do. I'd really hope my knowledge of physics didn't eclipse a nuclear physicist.

The point is that a variety of metaphysical theories (atheism, theism of various degrees, etc) try to claim that science is in their corner. You've seen it happen -- everybody tries to imply that the evidence stacks up in their direction. The problem is that the evidence doesn't really stack in any direction on these sorts of issues.

Quote :

"Would you care to explain the difference and how it is you know or even think you know this to be the case?"

Well one easy proof that what you perceive isn't the fact of the matter is that people perceive different things. So right off the bat you've established that what you're perceiving isn't exactly "what's out there," but some interpretation that your sensory organs draw.

Part of the point with most metaphysics is that, unless its logically inconsistent, you have no real tools with which to show one theory as better than another. Especially not as science is concerned. The assumption of real matter, in this case, is more a matter of favoritism than anything else on your part.

Quote :

"Green is a word that represents something "percieved" too, I don't call it "apparent green.""

Common usage of natural language doesn't prove much about the fact of the matter. If you think green exists in a mind-independent fashion in the universe then let me know, because I disagree.

Quote :

"Once again, this is a definition game. I think most scientists wouldn't disagree with what you're saying. But they're not going to change all their terminology just because you think saying "matter" implies a full understanding of it."

I don't necessarily want to change the terminology, that's not even the point of this thread. We've gotten seriously sidetracked because of the example I used (which isn't necessarily a problem, I've enjoyed it at least). As long as it's understood that science can't really be used to draw up metaphysical claims, then fine. This is a thread about the misapplication of science (not necessarily by scientists themselves, but by those who are claiming to be 'scientifically minded' in using the evidence in this fashion).

Quote :

"I'll assume this was serious.. Have you read any of my posts? I have asked you to clarify things in pretty much every single one. "

Yeah and I took a stab at explaining each, is there anything else that is still fuzzy? I realize this is out there, so I want to try to make it more accessible.

12/9/2006 9:08:53 AM

Quote :

"I realize this is out there, so I want to try to make it more accessible."

if all this is about is you're being annoyed that people try to use science for unscientific things, then no it's not that out there. i guess i thought there was some bigger point.

people have been mis-applying FOREVER.

you seemed to be claiming for a while in this thread that scientists holding non-scientific beliefs at all was bad. but you have not been very clear on this point and seem to go back and forth from post to post.

[Edited on December 9, 2006 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2006 12:11:40 PM

Quote :

"if all this is about is you're being annoyed that people try to use science for unscientific things, then no it's not that out there. i guess i thought there was some bigger point."

That's the crux of the main argument. Naturally the rub is in the application, which is mostly what this is about. The side point about matter being unnecessary for science has caused most of the ruckus in this thread.

Quote :

"you seemed to be claiming for a while in this thread that scientists holding non-scientific beliefs at all was bad. but you have not been very clear on this point and seem to go back and forth from post to post."

I think the badness comes in when they try to sell this unscientific belief. There's a strong inclination of people to believe scientists, especially when it comes to projections based on scientific data. This is pretty much my beef.

12/9/2006 12:18:04 PM

Quote :

"I think the badness comes in when they try to sell this unscientific belief. There's a strong inclination of people to believe scientists, especially when it comes to projections based on scientific data. This is pretty much my beef. "

i would like to see some examples of your "beef" [no homo]

12/10/2006 3:47:55 PM

When will philosophy majors realize that they are entirely irrelevant?

12/11/2006 1:11:16 PM

They aren't irrelevant. Philosophy plays a vital role in governement spending, because somebody has to figure out what is the most ethical way to distribute funds for things like, say, healthcare. Is it ethical to spend X% of taxes on Medicare? How about welfare? Who's to say we should support seniors at all? The poor?

Philospohy and ethics answer these questions. It's easy to dismiss humanistic fields as irrelevant until you realize they exist out of necessity.

12/11/2006 1:42:56 PM

Who doesn't have a system of ethics? Anyway, I can't ever recall a philosopher saying anything as pragmatic as a particular $$ amount appropriate for a given government program. If anything they'd just complain about the program's mission being ill-defined and try to redefine it into success, or at least apparent success

I'm to page 4 in my reading here, I'll say something once I get past the next few pages of trolling.

[Edited on December 11, 2006 at 11:35 PM. Reason : delete ing]

12/11/2006 11:34:32 PM

Been pretty busy. Looked for some decent quotes tonight, came across a pretty good one from Academe:

Quote :

"My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood. Academe January 1987 p. 52"

-- William Provine, Charles Alexander Professor of Biology at Cornell University

12/12/2006 12:13:21 AM

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/12/15/6307

12/16/2006 6:50:31 AM

Somebody didn't read the thread.

12/16/2006 2:57:15 PM

In a purely subjectively interpreted universe, there truly is no distinction between dogmatic atheism and dogmatic theism. Both are supraceeded by logical necessity.

12/16/2006 3:19:31 PM

What does supraceeded mean? I feel retarded for asking this, but I cannot find a definition for this word..

12/16/2006 6:47:28 PM

^^^...^, from Blind Hate's link:

Quote :

"Going back to what Bohr said, I think people can understand Quantum Mechanics under the framework that has been laid out. But it's understanding the theory, not the universe. There's something non general about the way we choose to construct our theories. We have no good idea what that is (yet anyway). And as evidence of that, I present Renormalization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization . Basically whenever we get infinities in advanced physics, we carefully construct another infinity in the equations such that the infinities cancel and we get the number we want. It works on a calculational level, but it really indicates that we are missing something. "

(it's from a comment in the text)

12/16/2006 7:21:56 PM

Quote :

"As long as it's understood that science can't really be used to draw up metaphysical claims, then fine. This is a thread about the misapplication of science (not necessarily by scientists themselves, but by those who are claiming to be 'scientifically minded' in using the evidence in this fashion)."

Science itself cannot make metaphysical claims. However, someone who is highly empirical might easily say that they do not believe in things which do not have a scientific basis and build a philosophy from there.

I think this is how many atheist proceed.

One could also boast about a metaphysical philosophy based on science, in that science itself produces reliable predicitions and therefore the philosophy is grounded. What particular reason is there to believe in one version of god or special creation? There is, however, a particular reason to believe in gravity.

That is, the belief in gravity has been shown to be consistent with predictions in the face of falsification.

12/16/2006 7:50:48 PM

Made irrelevant by a force acting beyond the confines of a given plane of consideration (i.e. atheism vs theism).

12/17/2006 3:38:55 AM