|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/20/2005 : 20:50:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I didn't see an answer to my question about whether one of those two basic assumptions is reasonable (not whether it's necessary, but whether it's reasonable).
Neither one of them is reasonable if you are examining them from a context in which you do not accept the evidence of your senses as solid proof of those two assumptions. If the basic context you are working from is that you accept no assumptions at all, then yes (I'm sure I said this in this thread before) to conclude that external objective reality exists and you can detect it would both become unreasonable.
But that is not the discussion we are having. We are all in agreement that the context from which we are working is the one that requires those two assumptions to be accepted as true.
And, within that context, there are no other Assumptions which are necessarry to accept without evidence.
And, therefore, conclusions based on unevidenced assumptions, that are not stated as being conditional, are unreasonable.
I don't know how to say it more clearly than that.
quote:
At least H. understood that I was talking about someone who switched between two independent contexts (they differ by how a person can detect the two different external realities), he just found it "distasteful" that there's no method for doing so. Whether or not distaste is a good basis upon which to judge reasonable from unreasonable, I don't know.
Ok. But that isn't what people are doing. When you claim "god exists" you are working within the context of those two necessarry assumptions. You are basing a conclusion on unevidenced propositions.
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 21:07:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Ok. But that isn't what people are doing. When you claim "god exists" you are working within the context of those two necessarry assumptions. You are basing a conclusion on unevidenced propositions.
Actually, I don't think they are. If they did, they could never come to the conclusion that god exists. I think what they are doing is suspending the rules when they feel like it.
That's why people some people are able to think their belief doesn't conflict with science--they've just chucked the whole context out the window. People such as myself see dishonesty in such a tactic. I mean, why bother ever retrieving it if you find it so expendable?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2005 : 21:42:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, I don't think they are. If they did, they could never come to the conclusion that god exists. I think what they are doing is suspending the rules when they feel like it.
To them, personally, that may be the case.
But, to those of us who are working from within the context of those two necessarry assumptions, they are making an unevidenced claim.
The statement "god exists" is a claim about the fundamental nature of reality. To accept such a thing without evidence is unreasonable.
Also (and again) as I have said previously, the ability of the human mind to seperate contexts can allow a person to be a good scientist and still hold unreasonable beliefs, as long as their area of science isn't in conflict with their unevidenced assumptions.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 00:44:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Also (and again) as I have said previously, the ability of the human mind to seperate contexts can allow a person to be a good scientist and still hold unreasonable beliefs, as long as their area of science isn't in conflict with their unevidenced assumptions.
They can perform good science, yes, but are they really good scientists or are they just lucky?
Depends of how your define "good scientist" of course. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 08:31:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Also (and again) as I have said previously, the ability of the human mind to seperate contexts can allow a person to be a good scientist and still hold unreasonable beliefs, as long as their area of science isn't in conflict with their unevidenced assumptions.
They can perform good science, yes, but are they really good scientists or are they just lucky?
Depends of how your define "good scientist" of course.
Oh please :)
Good, or shall I say great scientists are often as intuitive as they they are deductive. They arrive at inuitive 'beliefs' about universe particulars from indirect data, which other scientists which are more reductionist would have great difficulty in accepting. The inuitive scientist then scientifically, deductively, probes that area of his 'belief' to confirm it or falsify it. But many times it is 'belief' that is the driving force behind experiments in the first place.
Now, a scientist who sees the wonders of the universe may come to intuitively believe or feel that a transcendent Being is ultimately behind it. Unforunately he can't set up an experiment to detect God and hence validate his belief, can he?
What I'm saying is that 'belief' operates in science as well. Science, of course is and should be concerned with those beliefs which are falsifiable. But for *science* to say that there should be no beliefs which aren't scientifically falsifiable, well, I think it is going *way* beyond the parameters of science to say that science shall be *the* arbiter of *truth*. Truth is much bigger than what is scientifically accessible. That's my belief anyways, and to believe otherwise is also a matter of, well, belief.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 09:53:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude may be getting what I've been saying.
People switch between contexts all the time. Contexts in which the two basic assumptions are still made, but made in different ways.
When evaluating objective claims, we use the "scientific" context in which "external reality" is "the universe" and our methods of detecting it are those used by science. When evaluating someone else's subjective claims, however, we switch to a different context in which "external reality" is what a person says, and our method of detecting it is through their communication with us.
And H. seemed to agree that it is unreasonable to apply the standards of our objective context to the claims made in subjective contexts, and vice versa. The method of swithcing between these two contexts seems obvious: does a claim seem to be subjective or not?
I was simply proposing another context, maintained by liberal theists, in which "external reality" is full of deities, angels, demons, etc. and the method of detecting it is revelation. Granted, the standards of "evidence" in such a context are necessarily much more lax than in other contexts, but given that such a context can conceptually exist, properly separated from all others, the method of switching from one to the other becomes simple: is a claim being made about God?
Where creationists and other conservative theists become unreasonable is with their insistence that the scientific context and the religious context are one and the same. And it's obvious that there's a sliding scale of overlap between the two contexts for most of the world's population. A person for whom the two are mostly independent might believe, for example, that the only points of necessary overlap they know of exist (A) at the beginning of time, and (B) surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. Most are somewhere in between.
But anyway, if switching contexts between the objective and subjective based upon the "phrasing" of a claim is okay (or "reasonable"), and that allows us to avoid trying to evaluate "my favorite color is blue" in a strictly scientific way, then why is it unreasonable for a person to execute a context switch with religious claims which do not overlap the realm of the scientific?
H. seems to say that it isn't unreasonable, but his "unreasonable" is defined only within the scientific context, and doesn't apply to either the religious context nor to the act of switching contexts (no matter what contexts one is switching between).
That's why my prior post was so short: H. wasn't saying that "reasonable" is an inherent property of any particular context, but only a definition that applies in pretty much just the one context. Other contexts will have different definitions of "reasonable" (the idea that God and Satan get together on the weekends to shoot smack and drink brown liquor is unreasonable in most Christian contexts, but the idea that God can cure cancer is not). So, given the definition of "reasonable" supplied, there wasn't much more to say. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 11:22:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's why my prior post was so short: H. wasn't saying that "reasonable" is an inherent property of any particular context, but only a definition that applies in pretty much just the one context. Other contexts will have different definitions of "reasonable" (the idea that God and Satan get together on the weekends to shoot smack and drink brown liquor is unreasonable in most Christian contexts, but the idea that God can cure cancer is not). So, given the definition of "reasonable" supplied, there wasn't much more to say.
The reasonableness of a claim is relative to the context in which it is stated, yes.
However, if you are unwilling to accept the conditions of a certain context, then claims made within it will be unreasonable.
And, as I have said, when basic epistemology is the subject, there are only two assumptions that are necessary for us to function.
I'm not even talking about a "scientific" worldview, but merely a rational one. Does it make sense to accept any further assumptions without evidence? Is it reasonable to do so?
Because all other contexts use those first two assumptions, because without them you have only solipsism.
That is why I consider it unreasonable, in any further context, to base conclusions on unevidenced assumptions, regardless of our ability to think within those contexts. Any conclusions reached must be stated as being conditional upon further evidence in order to be considered reasonable.
|
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
26024 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 12:37:13 [Permalink]
|
| Dude, I give up in frustration at not being able to get across what should be basic points. Your last post makes it clear we're talking past each other, and I just can't take it anymore. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 13:21:21 [Permalink]
|
Do you agree that without making the assumptions of "external objective reality exists" and "we can detect it", that all you have at that point is a solipsistic worldview?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 14:00:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The reasonableness of a claim is relative to the context in which it is stated, yes.
Here we absolutely agree.quote:
However, if you are unwilling to accept the conditions of a certain context, then claims made within it will be unreasonable.
As long as we remember to keep in mind that the context we have choosen for ourselves is not absolute then I think we essentially agree here.quote:
And, as I have said, when basic epistemology is the subject, there are only two assumptions that are necessary for us to function.
This statement is factually incorrect. There are many many more than just these two assumptions that are nessessary for us to function. For example the assumption that logic is a useful tool for discovering the truth and detecting contradictions. Or the assumption that we can understand objective reality (not merely detect it.) There are many other basic assumptions that are nessessary for us to funtion.
What I'm saying is not that we should throw out your two assumptions, but that those assumptions, by themselves, are not sufficient.quote:
I'm not even talking about a "scientific" worldview, but merely a rational one. Does it make sense to accept any further assumptions without evidence? Is it reasonable to do so?
All assumptions must be accepted without evidence. If they were supported by evidence they wouldn't be assumptions. From a strictly logical point of view all assumptions are equally unreasonable. It is only from a pragmatic or aesthetic point of view some assumptions can be said to be more reasonable than other assumptions. Occam's Razer (itself an assumption) is an example of this.quote:
Because all other contexts use those first two assumptions, because without them you have only solipsism.
That is why I consider it unreasonable, in any further context, to base conclusions on unevidenced assumptions, regardless of our ability to think within those contexts. Any conclusions reached must be stated as being conditional upon further evidence in order to be considered reasonable.
If you were to strictly follow this line of reasoning you would probably have to throw out parts of science itself (for example the assumption that a good theory must be falsifiable), and you certainly wouldn't be able to come to the conclusion that science is worth doing. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 16:08:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you were to strictly follow this line of reasoning you would probably have to throw out parts of science itself (for example the assumption that a good theory must be falsifiable), and you certainly wouldn't be able to come to the conclusion that science is worth doing.
Ok, apparently Dave_W is right. This thread has become pointless, as nobody is getting what others are saying.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 00:17:47 [Permalink]
|
Putting the Revivification Syringe into this thread...
Though the post is mainly on standing up against theism PZ Myers has some comments that fit in this thread,
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/in_praise_of_godless_science/
quote:
It is self-evident that scientists are not necessarily derisive of religion, and also that science as an abstract concept can't be derisive at all.
However, I do think that the processes of science are antithetical to the processes of religion—personal revelation and dogma are not accepted forms of evidence in the sciences—and that people can encompass both clashing ideas is nothing but a testimony to the flexibility of the human mind, which has no problem partitioning and embracing many contradictions.
...
I really think we (not me, of course, but the general "we" of all of us ladies and gentlemen fighting creationism) go too far in trying to present science as compatible and even friendly to religion. It's not. The whole philosophy of critical thinking and demanding reproducible evidence arms its proponents with a wicked sharp knife that is all too easily applied to religious beliefs, which rely entirely on credulity.
...
So what we get is a common strain of chronic avoidance of the issue among the pro-evolution crowd. We put up a façade that ignores two important things: - the majority of scientists are deists, agnostics, and atheists, who want to promote greater science literacy and rational thinking (but not, explicitly, freethought—that's only a common aftereffect)
- the creationists aren't stupid about social issues, and can see right through it—and they are well aware that compromise erodes religion, not vice versa.
It's analogous to the way the Intelligent Design creationists pretend to be scientists with no religious motivations*, which is similarly false and transparent.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 01:00:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
It would be silly to claim that believers in the supernatural cant contribute to science, but can you really be a good scientist if you rely on faith to answer such important questions?
Yes, one can believe in a god. God is not necessarily supernatural. It could mean that he only believes in some kind of creator. Not that everything on Earth has some supernatural explanation. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 01:02:15 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Starman. That really was one of the best essays I've read in a long while. I especially like the quotes from Dawkins, whose writings on the topic of religion I've never read without nodding in agreement. Jerry Coyne's comments on Dawkins book A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love really summed it up for me:
quote:
But Dawkins goes beyond a mere defence of atheism. He also subscribes to the American writer H. L. Mencken's dictum that: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." Why, asks Dawkins, should the public give religious arguments any more credibility than arguments for other brands of nonscientific 'truth'? Curiously, Dawkins does not explore why religious ideas get undue respect. Surely one reason is that arguing about religion (especially when one participant is an atheist) is unproductive, likely to produce only mutual dislike. No rapprochement is possible between those whose beliefs derive from evidence and those whose beliefs either do not depend on evidence or are unshaken by contrary evidence. This is why science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world. (bolding mine)
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 01:25:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, one can believe in a god. God is not necessarily supernatural. It could mean that he only believes in some kind of creator. Not that everything on Earth has some supernatural explanation.
You can also believe in FSM/IPU/CHT/IRD and so on and so on, but so what?
The original topic of this thread, which devolved into an argument about epistemology in which several of us were not communicating all that well, was about how a scientist could hold an unevidenced belief (god) and still be an objective and critical participant in scientific processes.
We never did really get to a concensus on that. The answers varied as the particilar definition of god varied.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
