The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Dre89]

Catholics don't commit any circle fallacy. Catholcis base their faith on Scripture and Tradition, and use historical sources to verify the validity of the previous two.

I'd say the only true circular Christians I know of are fideists.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Dre I wasn't aware that you had a personal relationship with every Catholic on the Earth. It must be an enlightening experience.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Catholics don't commit any circle fallacy. Catholcis base their faith on Scripture and Tradition, and use historical sources to verify the validity of the previous two.

I'd say the only true circular Christians I know of are fideists.

Look, a few I knew a long time ago committed that fallacy right in front of me, what dark horse said was incorrect and wrong. Not all catholics commit the circle fallacy both me and you can agree on that. To the point of my post and what I find wrong with your post is you claim that atheist shift the burden of proof away from them selfs when they claim god does not exist, this is not true for the same reason dark horse is incorrect. There are atheist that do not shift the burden of proof away from themselves. I hope I made myself clear this time I think that my post was misunderstood which I think I am partly to blame for not being clear.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

"Dre I think you're a hypocrite for generalizing atheists in the same vein that Dark Horse was generalizing Catholics."

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, you have to understand Dre's wording. When he says "atheists", he means "unintelligent atheists". When he says "catholics", he means "intelligent catholics". It's unfair terminology, but once you understand it, he's really just accusing unintelligent atheists of committing fallacies, which is fair.

 

[Lore]

Only fideists and uneducated theists appeal the Bible fallaciously.

What's more annoying are all the atheists here who think theology is based off that fallacy.

Wait, do Catholics NOT believe in the Bible's infallibility or something? :o

If so, I might seriously consider going to mass one day.

Oh, and I apologize for my small amount of recent posts in here. I've been really busy lately with school and other things, and I'm only able to go on Swf either on my iPod or for short periods of time on my laptop.

It also doesn't really help that I'm addicted to Minecraft.

 

[Reaver197]

Catholics don't commit any circle fallacy. Catholcis base their faith on Scripture and Tradition, and use historical sources to verify the validity of the previous two.

I'd say the only true circular Christians I know of are fideists.

Oh, of course, Catholics have never committed the circle fallacy. How do they know to base their faith on Scripture and this "Tradition" then, and how do they avoid the issue that seems to plague other sects of Christianity?

Good thing the Bible contradicts itself and known history on several different occasions also.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

Edit: QualiaSoup has a nice, succinct video that I think is quite relevant to the discussion (that has somehow ended up being spread amongst different threads).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=sub

 

[Dre89]

I've seen those alleged contradictions, I'll just leave it to the Biblical scholars to answer them, Biblical scholarship is not my forte.

That video was good until it started talking about God. It was well written, but applied huge straw-mans and commtited an ad hominem when it started talking about how theists treat atheists, acting as if no atheists ever treat theists badly.

It was also kinda funny how the video got preachy at the end.

Atheism is a logically sustainable position, but people try to criticise religion directly, when they haven't done anywhere near enough study to be an authority on it.

 

[rvkevin]

It was well written, but applied huge straw-mans and commtited an ad hominem when it started talking about how theists treat atheists, acting as if no atheists ever treat theists badly.

I watched it thrice through, and didn't spot those supposed fallacies. Care to point them out? Did anyone else spot them?

 

[Reaver197]

I did not feel there was much in the of fallacious arguments in there, but I know that I would probably be predisposed to feel that way, despite my best attempts to not be. I would be interested to know exactly what points you felt were fallacious, Dre.

 

[Sieguest]

Is it me? Or have religious discussions been coming up more and more frequently?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

No, I think you are correct. I am not sure why, maybe because history is literally repeating its self? (Maybe we have cycles of subject in our debating topics?)

 

[Reaver197]

Yeah. The topic of religion comes and goes, generally as debaters come, be active, then stop posting and new people come in.

It's the topic almost everyone is itching to talk about on some level.

 

[Sieguest]

It definitely seems that way, not only have I seen it spring up more here, I've also been addressed with it at school a lot more too. I found it really odd (and somewhat humorous) that this topic has just sparked up so much more than I've seen in the past.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

It's a really macroscopic topic. Especially from a scientific viewpoint that proposes theories such as RNA world hypothesis. I mean what is RNA? RNA is composed of a ribose sugar, phosphate group, and a nucleic base. What is a ribose sugar? What is phosphate? What are nitrogenous bases? Even digging into those questions can lead you deeper into the rabbit hole without ever encapsulating RNA world hypothesis until a couple of pages are exhausted. Attempting to explain how the world began is difficult, especially when we still have difficulty attempting to understand present conditions today.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Edit: QualiaSoup has a nice, succinct video that I think is quite relevant to the discussion (that has somehow ended up being spread amongst different threads).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=sub

New QualiaSoup vid? SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

[Reaver197]

Read this Cracked article, and from all the religion topics as of late, I knew I had to share it here.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18757_5-things-you-wont-believe-arent-in-bible.html

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I believed it...I knew about all except the angels and the obscure details.

The angles do look awesome though I do not see how to turn that into a debate topic, I wish I could though.

Edit: I saw something Dre Posted in the proving grounds so I am responding to it here as well you know...

I dont get why you're asking theists believe God is non physical. There would be absolutely no point in believing God was physical, there would be no need for God if we would accept that a physical being could actuate the universe.

There used to be Christians that believed god was physical/near physical. It was not till science started advancing that this believe started to dissolve.

 

[Dre89]

There used to be Christians that believed god was physical/near physical. It was not till science started advancing that this believe started to dissolve.
[/COLOR]

What is it with everyone saying this now all of a sudden?

Seriously, show me evidence of Catholic scholars saying God was physical.

People like Augustine and Aquinas never said God was physical, and that was when physics was still Aristotelian, in other words well before science became prominent.

Honestly, I'm getting sick of people making accusations at religion and theism without doing anywhere enough research. If I behaved the same way in a science thread, people would be ripping my head off. It's disrespectful to philosophy and theology to think you can waltz into their debates without being educated in them in the slightest.

At least Reaver is posting links, and CK provides legitimate historical arguments against evidence for the NT. Blazed has dome some nice posts in respone to me, and RVkevin usually says Good stuff, but other than that the DH is making atheism (or atheists) look really uninformed, which is an injustice to atheism.

Also interesting fact, Anthony Flew, who was one of the top atheist philosophers, apparently said that his conversio nto deism was hugely influenced by Dawkins, in that he was so disgusted by Dawkin's arguments, that he was ashamed to be apart of a movement that made arguments like that.

Apparently most responses to Dawkins have been done by scientists. My lecturer told me very few philosophers respond to Dawkins, because most of them don't want to acknowledge him as a writer worth responding to. I found that interesting.

 

[Lythium]

Isn't Jesus considered a physical manifestation of God's spirit, by most Catholic scholars?

Also, there are several passages in the Bible where God appears in the Old Testament in different ways: as an angel of the Lord (Acts 7:30-32; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1), apparently in physical form (Gen. 3:8; Exodus 24:9-11), in visions and dreams (Num. 12:6-8), and in flame (Judges 13:20-21). However, there are verses that say that you can't see God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18).

Wouldn't those also be considered forms of physical manifestation? Or are there such contradictions between the Bible and those who study it?

 

[adumbrodeus]

A manifestation is very different from God actually being physical.

And no, Jesus is not a physical manifestation of God's spirit, that actually defies pretty much all catholic dogma.

 

[Lythium]

Allow me to rephrase then. Isn't Jesus considered God's spirit made flesh?

Or have all those years of Sunday school misled me? :I

 

[adumbrodeus]

Allow me to rephrase then. Isn't Jesus considered God's spirit made flesh?

Or have all those years of Sunday school misled me? :I

I think you completely misunderstood your sunday school.


Jesus assumed a physical body, he is not the spirit of God. He is one of the persons of the holy trinity which is what God actually is.

 

[Lythium]

Then wouldn't Jesus still be a physical aspect of the Holy Trinity, and therefore, God?

And I'm honestly not trying to come off as obtuse here, I'm legit curious.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

What is it with everyone saying this now all of a sudden?

Seriously, show me evidence of Catholic scholars saying God was physical.

Wow, calm down I was thinking of medieval times in my head and not the educated just what the huge majority at the time. I guess I should not post in debate hall at past 8:00pm . I should of clarified my bad.

Also interesting fact, Anthony Flew, who was one of the top atheist philosophers, apparently said that his conversio nto deism was hugely influenced by Dawkins, in that he was so disgusted by Dawkin's arguments, that he was ashamed to be apart of a movement that made arguments like that.

I am sorry I do not know who the Dawkin's are. Can you please explain it to me? I really and honestly do not know who they are however I can tell you I am not on their side, because I am on my side.

Apparently most responses to Dawkins have been done by scientists. My lecturer told me very few philosophers respond to Dawkins, because most of them don't want to acknowledge him as a writer worth responding to. I found that interesting.

I am not sure why that is inserting. If very few philosophers are not responding to this Dawkins then that tells me they have a really bad debate format and tend to be ridiculous in there arguements. How is bad debating inserting?

 

[Reaver197]

Dre, I wouldn't mind if you responded to RvKevin's and mine inquiry with regards to the QualiaSoup video.

I don't even know where the Dawkins bit came from though. Can't say I'm that familiar with Flew either.

On a more introspective note, I found this article that I would think would be interesting for the debaters to read. It's about studies that were done that found that when people felt more doubt about the positions or beliefs they held, they would turn into stronger advocates for their beliefs as a way to make up for their uncertainty of it.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...s-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/

 

[Sucumbio]

Then wouldn't Jesus still be a physical aspect of the Holy Trinity, and therefore, God?

And I'm honestly not trying to come off as obtuse here, I'm legit curious.

Matthew 28:19 (New International Version)

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

This passage from the Bible establishes a true precedence for the doctrine of the Triune God, which is in essence 3 persons in one Godhead. The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit all have equal "powers" in that they are all equally eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, and omniscient.

Because the Son is begotten, not made, the substance of his person is that of the deity. The creation is brought into being through the Son, but the Son himself is not part of it except through his incarnation. -source

So he appears as like a man, but he is not a man, he is God.

Acts 1:9-11

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.

"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

According to the Nicene Creed (1st of 325AD) and per Acts 1:9-11 we get our first real idea of Jesus' second coming, and a look into what it was to be "physically" human and yet not -only- human. There's some contention amongst scholars of this point. To be born is to be human, technically, so Jesus WAS human, but he's also a member of the Holy Trinity, so he's God. He's both. Peter tried to use this as a way to say that all people that partake in the Holy Communion are therefore also partially God. That just leads to issues, so I tend not to go down that road myself, but I hope this explains somewhat what you're asking.

 

[jaswa]

I am not sure why that is inserting. If very few philosophers are not responding to this Dawkins then that tells me they have a really bad debate format and tend to be ridiculous in there arguements. How is bad debating inserting?

The point was that Dawkins is so theologically and philosophically crap (since he's untrained in those areas) that they don't care about the rubbish he brings forth to their fields.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Then wouldn't Jesus still be a physical aspect of the Holy Trinity, and therefore, God?

And I'm honestly not trying to come off as obtuse here, I'm legit curious.

No, Jesus is identical in substance to the other persons of the holy trinity, he is not "the physical aspect of God" because God doesn't inherently have a physical aspect, he's merely the person of the holy trinity that took humananity upon himself.


Theologically complex I know, but quite distinct.

 

[Lythium]

Ah, okay, I see. Thanks for the clarification! :3c

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Who here has seen "Repo Man"? Who else thinks that the system is correct and morally acceptable?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Who here has seen "Repo Man"? Who else thinks that the system is correct and morally acceptable?

What ever happened to Brave New World?

And no I have not seen Repo Man.

 

[Sieguest]

DUH!!!!!!!!!

That's the WHOLE POINT, lol. Obviously that's the only evidence -anyone- will accept who doesn't use faith, because... faith is the opposite of (scientific) evidence. If you haven't figured it out by now, there is no such thing as evidence that isn't scientific in some way. Empirical. What have you. It's all the same thing. based. on. physical. proof.

I don't wish to derail the Jedi Council thread, so I'll just post something I wanted to say here.

This is probably the most narrow-minded post I've read in a while.

Answer me this question Sucumbio: What empirical evidence is there for the idea of science? What evidence did the people first getting involved in what we call science have to prove that "we can establish facts about nature by observing it". The thing is... they didn't, they used logic to determine that they could do this, and then following this logic, they proceeded to derive the facts that we adhere to when we study science. Let it be known that Logic is a non-empirical method. (Derived that from using the opposite of the definition of empirical.)

Also, in order to interpret empirical data, one must use logic and in science, mathematics is also used. This further shows that science has a non-empirical base.

In that sense, empirical science has its foundation on a non-empirical base. So taking your logic into consideration, I don't have to accept science because there is no scientific proof for the idea behind science.

 

[Reaver197]

The whole point of empiricism, and the empirical methodology from that, is that you use observation (via your senses) and experience to gain knowledge. The more rigorous methodology that you described, and that science tries to employ, is simply to ensure a higher level of accuracy.

The thing about the empiricism is that it is essentially how the human brain works anyway, irregardless of what notions we may have about its ability to be logically and rationally coherent. From the moment we are born, certain structures and systems of neurons in the brain are activated and strengthened (or not activated and weakened) in response to the stimuli we receive from our environment.

Of course, the basic structure of the brain, and the neurons that make it up, are also, in a way, born of “observations” or “experience” of the environments and species that predated us. Those structures or uses that were highly inimical to properly survive or produce an accurate enough picture of the world to function would see themselves die out. The brain is empirical by nature, both in its constituents and how it operates.

To conclude or assert the inability of empiricism to deduce truths is to essentially question how the human mind works, which would leave all our arguments and ideas in a rut. I think by just us existing to the degree of success we currently enjoy (though, who can say for how much longer?), shows at least some truth-discerning virtue in empiricism, if truth means an accurate understanding of the world we inhabit.

Logic and rationality aren’t things that jump fully-formed and perfect into our heads either. Our ability to rationalize is honed and built up by the experiences (including, for better or worse, trusted authority figures) we have and are exposed to. This obviously leads to bumps and imperfections in the ideas we hold and the subsequent logic we employ from them.

Take, for example, children who believe in, say, Santa Claus. For them, the logical impossibility of a man able to visit billions of homes in the span of 8 hours or so does not register, since they have not had the experience and exposure to the just how many people live in the world, how large the world is, the speed one would need to travel, and the affect such speed would have on a person (plus innumerable other facts and issues). To them, it seems logically palatable to have a jolly man carrying every person’s presents visiting them all during one night.

Same can be said of people’s perceptions of falling objects. Before exposure to Galileo’s experiments (and the moon videos corroborating them), most people would feel that, intrinsically, heavier objects fall faster than light objects. While in most everyday experience, that may seem true, due to air resistance, it is not. Ironically enough, it’s people’s general observation and exposure to such a phenomena on Earth that leads their logical pathways astray. It shows the lesson that we cannot assume what we think of as logical and normal from our usual vantage point to be accurate, true, or logically consistent.

Taking into account that inherently the human brain operates mostly on emotional and visceral reactions rather than what we think of being rational and logical, it leaves a lot of chance that people have developed ideas and theories that may feel logical, but are not actually. Like the presuppositions of gods being necessary, or that they have attributes like omnipotence or anything like that.

Unfortunately, humans tend to use rationality to, instead of informing and questioning our positions, to justify and solidify them. So, you have to be careful of the fact that maybe the conjectures of all the theists about gods or what not could be more of trying to rationalize out a passed down devotion to an idea, or being a misinterpretation of the world from their limited vantage point, rather than being truth.

From the Universe and God(s) thread.

 

[Sieguest]

The thing about the empiricism is that it is essentially how the human brain works anyway, irregardless of what notions we may have about its ability to be logically and rationally coherent. From the moment we are born, certain structures and systems of neurons in the brain are activated and strengthened (or not activated and weakened) in response to the stimuli we receive from our environment.

Okay, I can agree with this.

Of course, the basic structure of the brain, and the neurons that make it up, are also, in a way, born of “observations” or “experience” of the environments and species that predated us. Those structures or uses that were highly inimical to properly survive or produce an accurate enough picture of the world to function would see themselves die out. The brain is empirical by nature, both in its constituents and how it operates.

Okay, the brain has an empirical base, what prevents it from having a foundation in non-empirical methods as well? Just as I'm saying science has a non-empirical base, I'm not saying that it doesn't have a base in empiricism as well.

To conclude or assert the inability of empiricism to deduce truths is to essentially question how the human mind works, which would leave all our arguments and ideas in a rut. I think by just us existing to the degree of success we currently enjoy (though, who can say for how much longer?), shows at least some truth-discerning virtue in empiricism, if truth means an accurate understanding of the world we inhabit.

I don't think this is completely true or completely wrong. Empiricism can deduce simple truths. "The sky is blue during the daytime and black during the evening hours." But it can't deduce all the truths of the world such as.
"Guest has a female that visits him every so often who calls him 'brother' so they must be related"
The "must be related" is derived from rational thought, there is no conclusive evidence from this situation that we're related, she may be calling me 'brother' out of religious affiliation or as a sign of affection for some event in the past.

Logic and rationality aren’t things that jump fully-formed and perfect into our heads either. Our ability to rationalize is honed and built up by the experiences (including, for better or worse, trusted authority figures) we have and are exposed to. This obviously leads to bumps and imperfections in the ideas we hold and the subsequent logic we employ from them.

Take, for example, children who believe in, say, Santa Claus. For them, the logical impossibility of a man able to visit billions of homes in the span of 8 hours or so does not register, since they have not had the experience and exposure to the just how many people live in the world, how large the world is, the speed one would need to travel, and the affect such speed would have on a person (plus innumerable other facts and issues). To them, it seems logically palatable to have a jolly man carrying every person’s presents visiting them all during one night.

Good point. However, how do you explain the creation of certain ideas, for example, the idea of science. What past experiences could people have used in first coming up in the idea of science? You could say "past experiences in nature" but then the question remains what sparked them to come up with science just from living. If that were the case then how come the second generation of humans on the planet not come up with science?

Same can be said of people’s perceptions of falling objects. Before exposure to Galileo’s experiments (and the moon videos corroborating them), most people would feel that, intrinsically, heavier objects fall faster than light objects. While in most everyday experience, that may seem true, due to air resistance, it is not. Ironically enough, it’s people’s general observation and exposure to such a phenomena on Earth that leads their logical pathways astray. It shows the lesson that we cannot assume what we think of as logical and normal from our usual vantage point to be accurate, true, or logically consistent.

It also proves the point that logic is non-empirical. Since the idea of science was derived from the use of logic (I don't see how it could be otherwise) and the idea that conclusions we make from science use logic and mathematics, that science does not have a foundation in the empirical only.

Taking into account that inherently the human brain operates mostly on emotional and visceral reactions rather than what we think of being rational and logical, it leaves a lot of chance that people have developed ideas and theories that may feel logical, but are not actually. Like the presuppositions of gods being necessary, or that they have attributes like omnipotence or anything like that.

Unfortunately, humans tend to use rationality to, instead of informing and questioning our positions, to justify and solidify them. So, you have to be careful of the fact that maybe the conjectures of all the theists about gods or what not could be more of trying to rationalize out a passed down devotion to an idea, or being a misinterpretation of the world from their limited vantage point, rather than being truth.

Well yeah, I can see that it is possible to make an error in logic, but I don't see what that proves. I can accept the fact that non-empirical methods can't always reveal truth on their own, but neither can empirical methods as I've shown above.

EDIT: Sorry for taking so long to respond, had to clean the bathroom in while I was in the middle of typing this response.
Anyway, I do see what you mean in that one can't just label science as having a strictly non-empirical basis, but it can't have just a strictly empirical basis either (basically what I was getting as Sucumbio about).

 

[Reaver197]

It's quite all right with taking your time. I don't expect everyone to sit around all day, waiting to write posts on smashboards, lol.

I know that my post wasn't exactly precisely a response to what you said, but I was hoping it was close enough in subject to give something to think about.

I also wanted to point out that looking at the definitions for “logic” and “science” from the Merriam Webster dictionary, and I don’t really see how it follows that logic (or mathematics) is non-empirical due to how it’s being defined there. To ask a question, how do we know that logic and mathematics can be used to effectively demonstrate things? Wouldn’t they have to be demonstrated in some level, like they do at school when first teaching their basis, that they can accurately reflect and predict observed events and data?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

I sense there is also some disconnect in how we are viewing and defining “science”.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Science is more or less the body of knowledge gained by using the scientific method: positing an idea, testing it, observe the results, then either readjusting the idea and/or performing more tests on it if it seemed to sufficiently agree with the results. This is certainly not an ideology that had to be invented, or didn’t exist one year, but then it suddenly did the next. I’m sure this is something people do, and have done, through out recorded history whether or not they called it science. Animals even do it, adjusting their behaviors to situations where the results were not what they wanted or expected. I don’t see how any of this is somehow indicative of science not being empirical, especially using the definitions given above.

Okay, the brain has an empirical base, what prevents it from having a foundation in non-empirical methods as well? Just as I'm saying science has a non-empirical base, I'm not saying that it doesn't have a base in empiricism as well.

What do you mean by “a foundation in non-empirical methods”? If the workings of the brain is contingent upon observation and experience, how could it be simultaneously non-empirical? Same with science. I don’t really think things can be cut both ways.

I don't think this is completely true or completely wrong. Empiricism can deduce simple truths. "The sky is blue during the daytime and black during the evening hours." But it can't deduce all the truths of the world such as.
"Guest has a female that visits him every so often who calls him 'brother' so they must be related"
The "must be related" is derived from rational thought, there is no conclusive evidence from this situation that we're related, she may be calling me 'brother' out of religious affiliation or as a sign of affection for some event in the past.

That could be the case, but that’s not the point of that section you quoted.

How do we determine there is a girl, or a person named Guest, or the implications of the word “brother”, and the usage normally associated with it, other than through using our senses and experience? Plus, the rationality of it is informed by our experience with the usage of the word “brother”, and the situation in which it is employed (which you have to use observation to even see).

Experience and observation isn’t all-knowing though, or perfect, so there are misses and imperfections. It’s just that it is more likely to give a more accurate or correct answer that it is not, especially as it is honed over time.

The question to also ask is how do you know a rational thought from an irrational one?

Good point. However, how do you explain the creation of certain ideas, for example, the idea of science. What past experiences could people have used in first coming up in the idea of science? You could say "past experiences in nature" but then the question remains what sparked them to come up with science just from living. If that were the case then how come the second generation of humans on the planet not come up with science?

Science isn’t so much an “idea”, as I explained before. It’s a body of knowledge, like history. It makes no sense to think about it about it as a singular idea that had to be come up with. It’s a natural branching of human thought and endeavor. What did need some thinking on was determining a level of standard and quality so that the knowledge could be reproducible and demonstrable, and determining ways the effectively demonstrated levels of accuracy.

It also proves the point that logic is non-empirical. Since the idea of science was derived from the use of logic (I don't see how it could be otherwise) and the idea that conclusions we make from science use logic and mathematics, that science does not have a foundation in the empirical only.

I don’t see how that demonstrated logic is non-empirical. I was simply saying that what may look logical from one perspective, might not be logical from another perspective or in the grander scheme of things. It takes empirical knowledge to determine the logic of something, and how far it extends.

Also, part of the implication of my argument, is that inherently, the ideas and arguments we hold, are empirical. It’s just a question of how well we test them and recognize them for how accurate they are, and how in tune they are with all our other experiences and suppositions.

Well yeah, I can see that it is possible to make an error in logic, but I don't see what that proves. I can accept the fact that non-empirical methods can't always reveal truth on their own, but neither can empirical methods as I've shown above.

How do you know what an error in logic is without your experience and observation of facts and other arguments?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What ever happened to Brave New World?

And no I have not seen Repo Man.

FFFFFF

I said I'd get to that and I never did... hmm....... Yeah, I'll make time for it soon. It's just those **** stage discussion forums.... I just spent 20 minutes trying to convince ADHD that ad hominem REALLY STILL DOES NOT WORK.

 

[Sucumbio]

What empirical evidence is there for the idea of science? What evidence did the people first getting involved in what we call science have to prove that "we can establish facts about nature by observing it". The thing is... they didn't, they used logic to determine that they could do this, and then following this logic, they proceeded to derive the facts that we adhere to when we study science. Let it be known that Logic is a non-empirical method. (Derived that from using the opposite of the definition of empirical.)

Faith (with a capital F) is devoid of logic, reason, or evidence. It is purely based on personal opinion. When you ask an atheist why they don't believe in god it's because of "lack of physical proof." Basically it's another way to say "I don't have Faith." At the risk of generalizing atheists, they don't need Faith. They're quite content to exist solely on the factual representations of life around them. Besides I wasn't referring to the school of thought known as Science. I was referring to the scientific method... of observation, notation, clarification, experiment, etc. Faith, is the opposite of Evidence. This isn't a hard concept to follow, and it's quite true. If you're believing in something because it's right in front of you, then you're not using faith, you're using evidence. I know it may seem like a trivial point, and obvious, but this is why Dre. exasperates me so. Because something as simple as this eludes him.

 

[Dre89]

Just to back up what me and Guest have been arguing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco&p=3FCFF0A0C1777CB3&playnext=1&index=6

But it's straight forward anyway. Science is a methodology. Methodologies, before we evaluate their accuracy and merit, produce only conclusions, not truths. They produce truths, if we have evaluated them, and established that the methodology is accurate and meritious.

So how do we know that science as a methodology is meritious? You can't use science to prove science is meritious. You can't use observation to prove that a methodlogy which presupposes that observation correlates to reality is true.

No one is saying that science is flawed. What we're saying is is that science has a prior premsie, that our perception correctly correlates to the extenral world, and that observation is accurate and can be used to conclude various truths.

 

[Reaver197]

I don't know if that video is quite applicable, since it seems we are arguing something a little different, but I can see where you are coming from.

I agree with what you are saying for the most part, that is why I argue science is empirical in nature, because it runs on the presupposition that observation and experience are the key ways, if not the only ways, to arrive at an accurate conclusions. The thing is, that is intrinsically how we operate anyway, unconsciously and consciously. Science is just a more rigorous methodology and sphere of knowledge to employ in ensuring a higher level of quality in the observations made and thus (hopefully) the conclusions reached.

The thing I'm trying to say is that, inherently, all of our arguments, and ideas of how to formulate arguments, are based on the presupposition that observation are an accurate (or the most accurate we can achieve) reflection of the world. We do it, consciously and unconsciously, from the moment we are born, until the day we die. Other forms of life operate, live, and die on that very principal as well.

Science is simply an out branching of that presupposition. It essentially goes "well, if observation and experience are worth anything, here is the best way to utilize them and minimize their imperfections". Which is why I say that to doubt science and the scientific method, is to really throw doubt on whether observations and experience do lead us to any meaningful conclusions.

However, once you start doing that, you fall into the issue of how do we establish or hold anything to be true if the most basic of sensory inputs cannot be trusted? It is an argument that self-destructs itself since our whole mind (and thus, our ideas) is predicated on those very tenants.

Of course, being imperfect, our observations and experiences are often imperfect as well, leading to imperfect conclusions. But, science has done the best job of being able to have those imperfections play off each other to produce the most comprehensive, accurate, and predictive body of knowledge in all human endeavors.

My issue is that pretty much every other argument or methodology has to kowtow to the whole "observation is actually helpful" presumption (if just for the sake that your reading of them actually was accurate comprehension of them), but then some do not honestly follow it out and contradicts it.

As to whether we can use observation to prove science is meritorious, I believe you can, rather like using words to write a critique, or flowery appreciation, of language. The use of observation is a tool we are always employing anyway, so to make ask of an evaluation of something without it is a contradictory task. It's literally something we can not perform, as it is an innate function of being human (a live one, at least).

This might be a little rambly, since I'm pretty tired, lol. If I repeat myself a lot, my bad.