|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2005 : 14:52:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yet at the same it has the weakness that it, for the practical purposes of such investigation, assumes that all phenomena can be explained by merely reshuffling the deck of what is currently understood. That assumption can become like a article of faith, over and above the pragmatic tool that it is.
Now you are just making shit up. Well, ok, its not like you just now started making shit up considering the whole "supermaterial" kick you are on.... but that above quote is patently false. Skepticism makes no such assumptions. I hope you just honestly don't understand what you are talking about, otherwise it would appear as if you are deliberately lying.
quote:
At the very least, the application of Ockham's razor makes it virtually certain that Jesus existed. Otherwise, you would have to posit a massively complex conspiracy theory, involving some Jews who wanted to start a new religion and who then invented a master and a mythology to boot. It is much more reasonable to believe the man Jesus really existed, and that *some* things about him and his life were not quite accurately portrayed.
There is no doubt in my mind that a man named Jesus lived 2000+ years ago. In fact, there were probably hundreds, if not thousands.
However, that is not what is implied by invoking the name Jesus today. The son of a deity (the only deity according to some) who died and was resurected.
It is my contention that you cannot provide evidence that such a person ever existed.
If you believe one such fantastical claim, then you have to believe all such claims from that period of time. The ressurected hero was a common story. Jesus was just one of many.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 07:58:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky: Who thinks all phenomena can be explained without introducing new ideas? Certainly not I. And I think many others would agree. But when we have a way to explain something that we already know, why introduce that which we don't?
A good point. The preferred and rational methodology is attempt to explain phenomena according to what we already know. If the phenomenon isn't entirely consistent with, or predicted by, what we know, then as a last resort we introduce a new principle to account for it. I suppose it's the nature of that invoked principle which is either agreeable or disagreeable to the skeptical mind.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 08:12:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkieAlso, it does appear that an actual man was used to generate the image... quote:
Originally posted by MarkieI don't know what makes you think that.
Looking at a negative image of the shroud, I find the realism striking, far more so than a painting. It 'looks' like a photograph of sorts.
quote:
Originally posted by Markie: To me the best thing that could happen is that someone stumbles upon a method to reproduce such a shroud like image which is consistent with the Turin image in just about all respects (except age of course).quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: And Joe Nickell has done so.
He may have attempted something, but I can't find the generated 'image' and associated comparison data online. I am dubious (hey, skeptical!) of his claim. The Wikipedia entry mentions someone (not Nickell) who has claimed to produce a shroud like image (I think using gases related to decomposition) and I shall check it out when I have time.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 10:17:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: Now you are just making shit up.
Hey, it was David who first introduced the fairy poop theory of dark matter, not I 
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: .... but that above quote is patently false. Skepticism makes no such assumptions.
Of *course* it makes assumptions that things can be explained according to what we already know. Science for instance will try it's hardest to explain things by some derivative, of, say, the so-called four fundamental forces of nature before it decides there is a need for a fifth fundamental force.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: If you believe one such fantastical claim, then you have to believe all such claims from that period of time.
Perhaps you think that if I have the luxury of believing one fantastical claim, then consistency demands I should believe every fantastical claim Yet the historical truth is that most fantastical claims have been found to be not true, while a very small percentage has been found to be true. So I don't feel so badly holding some fantastical claims - which have not been falsified - to be true.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: The ressurected hero was a common story. Jesus was just one of many.
Yes the resurrected hero is a fairly common theme. The secretive Mithraic blood cult for instance had a resurrected hero, and was a competitor with very early Christianity for predominance. Christianity won out of course, but it was a Christianity which had been compromised to some of the trends of the day, like Mithracism.
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 10:35:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by markie:
"Yet the historical truth is that most fantastical claims have been found to be not true, while a very small percentage has been found to be true. (Really?, which ones?) So I don't feel so badly holding some fantastical claims - which have not been falsified - to be true. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 11:35:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of *course* it makes assumptions that things can be explained according to what we already know. Science for instance will try it's hardest to explain things by some derivative, of, say, the so-called four fundamental forces of nature before it decides there is a need for a fifth fundamental force.
Now you are just blithering on....
Do you even realize that the two sentences quoted contradict one another?
The fact that science looks first to what is already known for explanations in no way, shape, or form means that anyone assumes that an answer will be found in what we already know. How stupid would you have to be to go looking for "new" explanations if you already have one that works? Just because one of the steps in the process is searching through the known, doesn't mean that any assumptions are being made....
What is with all this incorrect information you have about science and logic anyway? Do you need these tools to be flawed for some reason? Does it help you justify your fantasy world if you can claim that science and logic are in some way broken?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 12:29:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Looking at a negative image of the shroud, I find the realism striking, far more so than a painting. It 'looks' like a photograph of sorts.
Can't help you, there, since it looks to me to be pretty crude, even compared to other art of that age.quote:
He may have attempted something, but I can't find the generated 'image' and associated comparison data online.
Well, here is one of them. How does it look to you?quote:
I am dubious (hey, skeptical!) of his claim.
And that's fine. A trip to the library to read his actual claims might be useful. I can only paraphrase or point to links.
Oh, and here's one of Nickell's latest articles on the shroud: Claims of Invalid “Shroud” Radiocarbon Date Cut from Whole Cloth.quote:
The Wikipedia entry mentions someone (not Nickell) who has claimed to produce a shroud like image (I think using gases related to decomposition) and I shall check it out when I have time.
Actually, the only time that entry mentions an attempt to duplicate the shroud, it's with sun-bleaching through a piece of painted glass. The decomposition-gasses discussion seems entirely speculative.
Hey, the Wikipedia entry also says,In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP, and continued to defend the analysis he had performed, becoming a prominent proponent of the position that the Shroud is a forgery. So no matter what McCrone thinks about the "brilliance" of the work, it's clear he thinks it's art. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 12:43:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: .... but that above quote is patently false. Skepticism makes no such assumptions.
Of *course* it makes assumptions that things can be explained according to what we already know. Science for instance will try it's hardest to explain things by some derivative, of, say, the so-called four fundamental forces of nature before it decides there is a need for a fifth fundamental force.
While Dude has already dealt with the substantial parts of the above, I'd just like to make it clear that science and skepticism are not one-and-the-same. Science seeks explanations of the world. Skepticism, to oversimplify, attempts to assign truth values to claims, scientific or not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 20:50:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie:
"Yet the historical truth is that most fantastical claims have been found to be not true, while a very small percentage has been found to be true. quote:
Originally posted by astropin
(Really?, which ones?)
The history of science has many instances of claims which were regarded as outlandish but were later accepted. Continental drift for instance.
quote:
Originally posted by dude: What is with all this incorrect information you have about science and logic anyway? Do you need these tools to be flawed for some reason? Does it help you justify your fantasy world if you can claim that science and logic are in some way broken?
Did I claim that science and logic were broken? They are very useful, they work very well. I merely take seriously the proposition that they are nonetheless limited in what they can explore.
*I* get the feeling that David and Dude and DaRestofDemSkeptics do not take much of a liking to the thinking of Thomas Kuhn and a book like "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." I haven't read Kuhn yet, but after reading some reviews at amazon.com he must be a somewhat of a kindred spirit.
Here's an except from the editorial review:quote:
Some scientists (such as Steven Weinberg and Ernst Mayr) are profoundly irritated by Kuhn, especially by the doubts he casts--or the way his work has been used to cast doubt--on the idea of scientific progress. Yet it has been said that the acceptance of plate tectonics in the 1960s, for instance, was sped by geologists' reluctance to be on the downside of a paradigm shift.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 21:10:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Can't help you, there, since it looks to me to be pretty crude, even compared to other art of that age.... Well, here is one of them. How does it look to you?
Hehe, lets just say Nickell's attempt has waaaay bested the shroud in 'crudeness'. Nice try though. I'm still about 50-50 undecided
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. Oh, and here's one of Nickell's latest articles on the shroud: Claims of Invalid “Shroud” Radiocarbon Date Cut from Whole Cloth.
Thanks for the link. At least csicop was fair enough to put in the reply of Roy Rodgers, which is below. I think it says alot. My bolding.
quote:
Reply from Ray Rogers:
Dear Editor:
Joe Nickell has attacked my scientific competence and honesty in his latest publication on the Shroud of Turin. Everything I have done investigating the shroud had the goal of testing some hypothesis [Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3 (1982); Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A., "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation," in Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp. 106-113].
My latest paper [Rogers, R. N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta 425/1-2, 189-194 (2005)] is no exception. I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the "invisible reweave" claim was highly improbable. I used my samples to test it. One of the greatest embarrassments a scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe. So, Joe, should I suppress the information, as Walter McCrone did the results from Mark Anderson, his own MOLE expert?
Incidentally, I knew Walter since the 1950s and had compared explosives data with him. I was the one who "commissioned" him to look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. I designed the sampling system and box, and I was the person who signed the paper work in Turin so that I could hand-carry the samples back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not allow Walter to touch the relic. Walter lied to me about how he would handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical tests. Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter found Madder on the cloth? I can refute almost every claim he made, and I debated the subject with his people at a Gordon Conference. I can present my evidence as photomicrographs of classical tests, spectra, and mass spectra.
Now Joe thinks I am a "Shroud of Turin devotee," a "pro-authenticity researcher," and incompetent at microanalysis. If he ever read any of my professional publications, he would know that I have international recognition as an expert on chemical kinetics. I have a medal for Exceptional Civilian Service from the US Air Force, and I have developed many microanalytical methods. I was elected to be a Fellow of a national laboratory. A cloud still hangs over Walter with regard to the Vinland map. Joe does not take his job as "Research Director" very seriously. If he thinks I am a "true believer," I will put him solidly on the "far-right" lunatic fringe.
Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others.
Sincerely,
Raymond N. Rogers
Fellow (Retired)
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, USA
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2005 : 21:54:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Did I claim that science and logic were broken? They are very useful, they work very well. I merely take seriously the proposition that they are nonetheless limited in what they can explore.
Science can explore anything you can point it at.
What continues to frustrate any meaningfull communication here is your insistence that evidence is not a requirement to assign a value of true (however tentative) to a premise.
As I have said before, if you don;t have a standard of evidence, then you can claim any fantasy or nonsense as being true, by your stated standard.
This isn't a small matter, it is a fundamental one. WIthout a standard of evidence, you turn all premises into equally meaning-free gibberish. And when I says all, I means all.(Yosemite Sam impression) The basic premises that every person takes for granted (objective reality exists, my senses are capable of detecting it) are shot down, and without those you are left with only solipsism.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 07:05:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Hehe, lets just say Nickell's attempt has waaaay bested the shroud in 'crudeness'. Nice try though.
Well, there's no accounting for taste.quote:
Thanks for the link. At least csicop was fair enough to put in the reply of Roy Rodgers, which is below. I think it says alot.
Odd, isn't it, that they don't also have Nickell's response to Ray Rogers' reply online. I'll find that issue, and let you know what Nickell thinks of your bolded parts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 07:55:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: Science can explore anything you can point it at.
It would have trouble exploring, say, the meanings of Hamlet.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: As I have said before, if you don;t have a standard of evidence, then you can claim any fantasy or nonsense as being true, by your stated standard.
This isn't a small matter, it is a fundamental one. WIthout a standard of evidence, you turn all premises into equally meaning-free gibberish.
Is the premise "God exists" as gibberish as the premise that dark matter is fairy poop? If so, then you have slammed Jefferson, a God believer, whom you quote on your signature. If not, then explain why it is not as gibberish.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude: The basic premises that every person takes for granted (objective reality exists, my senses are capable of detecting it) are shot down, and without those you are left with only solipsism.
OK, I looked up what solipsism meant.  Personally I'm a strong proponent of objective reality. I merely question that we are capable of moving beyond scientifically grasping a few whispery hairs of the objective elephants tail. The *belief* that we can grasp the entire elephant may be as presumptious as you think my beliefs are.
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 10:28:12 [Permalink]
|
| Jefferson was not privy to the information we have about, well every single subject there is except perhaps 18th century western politics. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2005 : 10:58:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It would have trouble exploring, say, the meanings of Hamlet.
No, it wouldn't. Just ask H.Humbert. In so far as the method in which the "meaning" is explored. But meanings are difficult to pin down, due to their highly subjective nature.
quote:
Is the premise "God exists" as gibberish as the premise that dark matter is fairy poop? If so, then you have slammed Jefferson, a God believer, whom you quote on your signature. If not, then explain why it is not as gibberish.
The premise "god exists" is meaning-free unless you can support it with evidence.
As for Jefferson, he was a deist. As were most of the prominent founding fathers. They were into the whole nautral rights thing. Many of them were Unitarian. None of which has any bearing on this conversation because the belief system they followed doesn't really exist in this country anymore.
And, as BPS said, (sort of) it is likely that Jefferson, and others of the so-called "enlightenment" era who held similar beliefs, would be much closer to the secular humanist side of things than to the religious side.
And none of them were above criticism. For example, all of them were slave owners. As were all wealthy land owners at the time.
quote:
Personally I'm a strong proponent of objective reality. I merely question that we are capable of moving beyond scientifically grasping a few whispery hairs of the objective elephants tail. The *belief* that we can grasp the entire elephant may be as presumptious as you think my beliefs are.
Aside from being a self defeating outlook.... I mean, how do you know what you are capapble of if you don't try?
Science has a tremendous history of success. The pace varies, but just look around you to see what I'm talking about. Start subtracting things from your immediate environment that science is responsible for, then start eliminating all the bits of knowledge you have that science is responsible for.... You won't be left with much.
Science, from its most rudimentary form (trial and error), to the very sophisticated method we use today, has had more impact on this world and our civilizations than any other single thing.
There is no reason to think that our aquisition of knowledge will someday just abrubtly cease (unless we continue to elect insane christian fundamentalists into public offices). In fact, the trend suggests that the pace of aquiring knowledge will only increase, along with the scope of our knowledge.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/30/2005 11:07:39 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
