|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2005 : 09:59:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude:
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.
I would say:
"Religious beliefs have had more impact on this world and our civilizations than any other single thing. Science has had more positive impact on this world and our civilizations than any other single thing." |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
 |
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 04:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
[quote]
I always find it interesting how when one scientist comes up with something that either negates or changes something that another scientist came up with previously.... that somehow the religious manage to turn that into a negative criticism of science.
That's pretty much all they (the religious) have got. Boring bastards.
r |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 04:21:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by DudeWhen you take into consideration the number of forged "holy relics" made by people in the last 2000 years, your claims moves from ridiculous to the realm of pure fantasy.
Dude, you don't need to consider forged relics to argue your point. You are correct whether or not relics have been forged in the past.
Cheers
r |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 04:33:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
In an attempt to get back on topic...
I personally try to never say, "That is wrong," at least not right away. I like the phrase, "That doesn't sound right," much better, followed up by looking up information on the topic to then be able to conclude that it is in fact wrong. To me, that is the difference between skepticism and cynicism. Of course, skeptics can often look like cynics when they already know the information behind something and are often able to say it is wrong without having to check facts.
I have evidence of Ricky doing this on a different, annoying forum. I for one am often not so patient.
quote:
But skepticism is a totally different thing than being skeptical of something. Skepticism is a tool, it tells us how to evaluate a claim. Such as asking questions, the hard questions, trying to find flaws in logic, and getting evidence.
Can you really be skeptical of asking questions, or checking logic, or getting evidence? I don't really see anything wrong with those, do you?
Agreed. I don't think I can argue with skeptical methods of enquiry. I hope I can't. But I fool myself all the time. Sometimes I only find out about this after some time, or (more rarely) after someone has pointed it out.
r |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 04:46:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Skepticism, to oversimplify, attempts to assign truth values to claims, scientific or not.
Do you really think so? As a skeptic, I don't attempt to assign values, truth or otherwise, to claims. I simply attempt to be skeptical of claims.
r |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 07:46:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latsot
Do you really think so? As a skeptic, I don't attempt to assign values, truth or otherwise, to claims. I simply attempt to be skeptical of claims.
So, you start with a claim with an unknown truth value, apply skepticism, and your result is a claim with an unknown truth value?
It doesn't seem like skepticism would be doing anything, in that case. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 07:58:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by latsot
Do you really think so? As a skeptic, I don't attempt to assign values, truth or otherwise, to claims. I simply attempt to be skeptical of claims.
So, you start with a claim with an unknown truth value, apply skepticism, and your result is a claim with an unknown truth value?
It doesn't seem like skepticism would be doing anything, in that case.
No...I think this is a misrepresentation. I don't think I necessarily start with a claim. I haven't the faintest idea what applying a 'skepticism' might even mean and I would never apply something so arbitrary as a truth value to anything.
Why do I feel like I'm walking into a trap here?
r
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 08:14:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latsot
Why do I feel like I'm walking into a trap here?
I honestly don't know, but will say that the SFN's mission statement reads as follows:The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise. The bolded part is what's relevant to what I was talking about (and what you seemed to be talking about).
Skepticism cannot exist in a vacuum. It's use is in evaluating claims. A skeptic takes a claim - for example, "ghosts exist" - applies skeptical methods to it, and comes to a tentative conclusion about whether the claim is correct or incorrect, or that there's not enough information available to decide.
So if you don't start with a claim, I've got no idea why you think skepticism is valuable (or if you think that at all). Similarly, if your skepticism doesn't bring you closer to being able to decide whether a claim is true or not, what good it is?
Why are you a skeptic, latsot? What does being a skeptic do for you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 08:46:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.
I have read this and agree entirely.
quote:
The bolded part is what's relevant to what I was talking about (and what you seemed to be talking about).
I'm surprised that you think otherwise.
quote:
Skepticism cannot exist in a vacuum. It's use is in evaluating claims.
Yes... I was only suggesting that the evaluation process doesn't necessarily result in a 'truth value'.
quote:
A skeptic takes a claim - for example, "ghosts exist" - applies skeptical methods to it, and comes to a tentative conclusion about whether the claim is correct or incorrect, or that there's not enough information available to decide.
As a skeptic, i take claims other people have made and evalute them in terms of evidence. I look at (some of) the evidence and decide for myself how credible i think the claim is. Maybe this is what you mean by evaluating truth - I certainly wouldn't be so pretentious as to call it that.
I also, by the way, treat my own claims in the same way.
quote:
So if you don't start with a claim,
Terminology. I meant that the claims are not necessarily mine. I think we agree on this.
quote:
I've got no idea why you think skepticism is valuable (or if you think that at all). Similarly, if your skepticism doesn't bring you closer to being able to decide whether a claim is true or not, what good it is?
You misunderstand. I only ever suggested that 'truth values' might be misleading. Is something 'more true' than something else? I think that is a pointless question. Is something more *useful* than something else? Can something be applied again and again? Does something seem to describe the world very well?
None of these questions have a single thing to do with 'truth values'.
I think we probably more or less agree - we may differ about the interpretation, but we are on the same side - aren't we?
You seem oddly hostile. I see no reason for that at all.
quote:
Why are you a skeptic, latsot? What does being a skeptic do for you?
WHY am I a skeptic? Because I question things. Because I don't believe everything I am told. Because I am unsatisfied by claims that don't have evidence.
WHAT does skepticism do for me? That is difficult to answer. It doesn't *do* anything for me as such - it is a *part* of me. It is an important part of the way I think.
I'm not sure why I am attempting to justify my opinion to you - particularly when you are being so hostile - THIS part of my motivation is certainly open to discussion.
r |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 10:16:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latsot
You seem oddly hostile. I see no reason for that at all.
I wasn't hostile, and intended no hostility.
But now that it seems my last two posts here have been time wasted on semantic quibbling, I'm pretty freakin' annoyed. Is that a good reason for hostility? Let's find out...quote:
I have read this and agree entirely.
Then what's the problem? I restated the mission statement in different words, and you asked "do you really think so?" I said yes, and still you appeared to disagree. Now I'm being "hostile," while you're saying that you agree with what I've said.quote:
Yes... I was only suggesting that the evaluation process doesn't necessarily result in a 'truth value'.
What else would it result in, but 'true', 'probably true', 'possibly true', 'dunno', 'possibly false', 'probably false' or 'false'? Or, of course, any other "truth value" in between those listed? Or is this a case where you have misunderstood me, and you didn't know that a "truth value" is analogous to a "numerical value" one might assign to a variable in algebra?quote:
As a skeptic, i take claims other people have made and evalute them in terms of evidence. I look at (some of) the evidence and decide for myself how credible i think the claim is. Maybe this is what you mean by evaluating truth - I certainly wouldn't be so pretentious as to call it that.
Ah, now I'm hostile and pretentious, just for using the language of logic. Gotcha.quote:
I also, by the way, treat my own claims in the same way.
...
Terminology. I meant that the claims are not necessarily mine. I think we agree on this.
If you agree with the mission statement, which says, "all claims of fact," then we do. What got you stuck on the idea that we were talking about your claims in particular?quote:
You misunderstand. I only ever suggested that 'truth values' might be misleading. Is something 'more true' than something else? I think that is a pointless question.
Well, given standard definitions and the base-10 number system, "2+2=4" is more true than "2+2=5."quote:
Is something more *useful* than something else? Can something be applied again and again? Does something seem to describe the world very well?
None of these questions have a single thing to do with 'truth values'.
Is there any substantive difference between "describes the world well" and "true?" This is given, of course, the basic assumption that the world exists, and is the same for us all, and all those other philosophical questions which neither science nor skepticism can touch.quote:
...but we are on the same side - aren't we?
That's for you to say. I had a hand in crafting the SFN mission statement. You say you agree with it, yet many things you've said in the last three posts says otherwise to me.quote:
WHAT does skepticism do for me? That is difficult to answer. It doesn't *do* anything for me as such - it is a *part* of me. It is an important part of the way I think.
Yeah, and my foot is an important part of the way I walk, but I can easily tell you some of the things it does for me. As has been said, skepticism is a tool. Tools do things for people, or people wouldn't use them anymore. You said you were a skeptic because you don't believe everything you're told. If skepticism suggests that you should believe some claims more than others, then it certainly does more for you than, for example, uncompromising cynicism.quote:
I'm not sure why I am attempting to justify my opinion to you...
You asked me a question, for which I thought I provided a perfectly good answer, but it didn't seem to be enough. Rather than continuing to re-state my own position, I thought I'd ask you about yours. Apparently, you find that type of questioning to be "hostile."  Go figure. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 10:22:22 [Permalink]
|
Regarding the Shroud, I don't think anyone's linked an article about this study carried out by Jacques di Costanzo and published in Science et Vie.
quote:
Drawing on a method previously used by skeptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, Science et Vie got an artist to do a bas-relief -- a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background -- of a Christ-like face.
A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face.
Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.
Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood.
The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.
The experiments, said Science et Vie, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth.
I was unable to dig up any photos of the recreated shroud, but it certainly appears that all the characteristics of the original have been reproduced.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 12:54:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie: 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 premise "god exists" is meaning-free unless you can support it with evidence.
I'm not understanding why you say it is meaning free. It is *loaded* with meaning, the likes of which guys like Jefferson took seriously and from which springs forth much of their idealism.
quote:
Originally posted by dude: 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.
Better yet, why not call them religious humanists? Religion should *exalt* humanism, because it aims for an eternal idealism, a perfectionism, which would be rather incongruent to the thinking of a secular humanist. Can there be a thriving brotherhood of mankind when there is no concept of a common Father who is over all? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 12:59:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can there be a thriving brotherhood of mankind when there is no concept of a common Father who is over all? I doubt it.
Absolutely there can be...but it is going to take a long time of social and cultural (possibly mental?) evolution to get there...primary of which is the final break from the primative mysticism that is so distracting, devisive, and destructive. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/09/2005 12:59:38 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 13:07:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Can there be a thriving brotherhood of mankind when there is no concept of a common Father who is over all? I doubt it.
You sound like a monarchist. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 18:58:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Religion should *exalt* humanism, because it aims for an eternal idealism, a perfectionism...
Does it? The Jewish god told them to enslave other humans. The Christian god is sexist. There are all sorts of war gods. Historically, most religions have shown little regard for the individual.quote:
...which would be rather incongruent to the thinking of a secular humanist.
"Incongruent" is the wrong word to use there, as the tenets of secular humanism don't address anything "eternal" or "perfect." What you've said is sort of like "the use of a machine gun is incongruent to the thinking of a sculptor."quote:
Can there be a thriving brotherhood of mankind when there is no concept of a common Father who is over all? I doubt it.
Well, you've just shown your pessimism. People won't behave without the threat of an all-powerful bully, or people won't behave unless they're bribed by an eternal benevolence, or something else along those lines.
Why is it that religious people are so depressing? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
