|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2009 : 08:44:59 [Permalink]
|
Technology is the application of knowledge.
I don't see any fundamental difference in your position and Dave_W's Ricky.
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 15:23:12 [Permalink]
|
| Ricky, you're basically saying that the amount of technology we have is the way to measure how much scientific knowledge we have. Since measuring knowledge as knowledge is certainly difficult, technology would be a realistic and pragmatic proxy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 16:31:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
But technology measures all knowledge, not just knowledge from science. This is why it is a useful (as well as pragmatic) way to measure different ways of "knowing".
That virtually all of technology comes from science shows that science is virtually the only way of knowing. |
Well, I'd be interested in seeing an example of a technology which did not arise through some application of the scientific method. I mean, it's unlikely that even flaked-stone arrowheads weren't developed randomly. People have used the scientific method before it was ever formalized. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 19:10:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Well, there's David Sloan Wilson. |
Thanks for the link. I haven’t read Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell” although I’ve read two of his other books and I’ve heard him speak. Wilson’s book review is pretty wonderful in that it remains entirely civil, makes it clear that this is a disagreement among friends before ripping into the parts of Dennett’s book that he disagrees with. If his characterization of some of Dennett’s statements are accurate (again, I haven’t read Dennett’s book so I don’t want to assume) then some of that criticism does lend credence to the idea that aspects of “New Atheism” are emotionally biased against religion to a fault: One recent
Templeton-funded project examined
the efficacy of prayer for the
recovery of cardiac bypass surgery
patients. There was no effect when
patients were unaware that they were
being prayed for, and a slightly negative
effect when patients knew that
they were being prayed for. Instead
of praising the Templeton Foundation
for supporting such research,
Dennett and his fellow brights can
be observed, thoroughly under the
spell of us-against-them thinking,
complaining about how they would
never accept dirty money from a religiously
motivated foundation. |
| That's what most atheists are referring to when they talk about Dawkin's "arrogance." But if he admits to a possibility of a God, what's arrogant about his arguments? |
You want me to quantify arrogance?
| No, Mooney reserves that sort of comparison for PZ Myers. |
Can you direct me to something Mooney wrote which does that since Google search didn’t help me find anything of that sort on my own.
| I understand that, but you understand that they won't get far by insulting the out-and-loud atheists, either. And Mooney's doing nothing for the secularmovement, he's just trying to sell a book. |
Selling a book and helping the secular movement aren’t mutually exclusive. Greg Epstein is also trying to sell a book, and clearly if that book sells successfully that will help him out personally. His motivations might be entirely selfish (Knowing him personally, I am fully convinced that his motivations are not selfish) but that is beside the point since his book has the potential to do a great deal of good for the secular movement by balancing the hostility (perceived or otherwise) of the “New Atheists” with a softer, fuzzier humanistic approach.
And actually, it is by criticizing the New Atheists that the other approach does get far at least in how our movement is perceived by the public. If the mainstream public – which doesn’t understand or care about the subtle differences in our approaches and arguments and philosophies – sees us debating among ourselves, we don’t look like one big scary monolith, but rather a more diverse community of independent thinkers. As much as it might sating, using harsh hyberbole like “atheist fundamentalist” causes more of a stir and is more likely to get media attention. And frankly, the likes of the four horsemen are popular and respected enough that they can take it.
| How can you say that when you agree that "atheist fundamentalist" is a conversation-stopper? It ends civil discussion because it is vile and slanderous, your redefinition not withstanding. |
I’m not going to argue over what qualifies as “vile” and “slanderous” any more than I’m going to argue over “arrogance.”
| Oh, good grief! Appeasement isn't the motivation, it's one of the political tools being used. If you really don't understand that, then it's you who aren't making an honest attempt to understand any of the debate. |
It isn’t only a political tactic. It is also about honestly preferring a more civil discussion and fostering a little more humility within our own ranks.
| This discussion was about whether Kurtz deserves a hearing on any other points after using the insult "atheist fundamentalist." |
What!? How is that rational? The reason “atheist fundamentalist” ends up being a conversation stopper is because it tends to incite such strong emotions that rational discussion breaks down. It is either an intentionally dirty tactic or exaggeration on the part of the accuser, but that doesn’t excuse the accused from reacting emotionally! Saying that Kurtz doesn’t deserve a hearing on any other points – no matter how strong those points might be – just because he used an insult… that amounts to picking up your toys and walking away saying, “You hurt my feelings so I’m not gonna talk to you anymore.”
Insults have been hurled from both sides – my example of PZ Myers calling Greg Epstein a “moron.” When people on both sides of a debate feel passionate, often insults find their way into the conversation. But mature, rational people find a way to calm themselves back down and get back to the meat of the debate.
| It inflames emotions because it is inaccurate. |
Round and round in circles we go. I say that Kurtz meant the term in a way which isn’t inaccurate, and you insist that he did. We have interpreted him differently, and unless he’s here to settle the debate, which he isn’t, I don’t see how we are going to settle it between ourselves.
| "Dogmatic" generally means "unwilling to change in the face of evidence that one's position is wrong." It is a criticism that has nothing to do with tone and tactics, and everything to do (generally) with the people using the word not putting forth a strong case. |
Round and round again. See above.
| And I thought it was clear, in context, who we were referring to when using the term: the same people Kurtz was calling "atheist fundamentalists." |
Kurtz wasn’t just talking about the horsemen. He was talking also about people who have participated in stunts such as “Blasphemy Day.”
| If Harris were trying to make atheists of people instead of just destroying there pretensiousness, then he'd be proselytizing. |
Oh, bullcrap. When I read “The End of Faith” my outrage was entirely over his attack of even moderate and progressive people of faith. Harris isn’t just out to get rid of religious pretentiousness or certainty. Or if that is his goal, is a pretty damn poor communicator.
From his “Atheist Manifesto”: | Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. |
Harris constantly associates faith, not blind faith, not fundamentalist faith, but just faith with the most horrific acts of violence.
Why is it so difficult to admit that New Atheism is partially characterized by an attack on personal faith and it does indeed hope to pull individuals away from their religious faith? If religious faith is harmful, which they clearly argue that it is, then proselytizing atheism is virtuous.
| Why? What gives them the right to indoctrinate their children with screwball religious nonsense, but not give them alcohol and cigarettes? What makes it okay for me to teach my child that homosexuals are an abomination and should be treated as such (an attitude which causes demonstrable harm to society), while it's not okay to beat the kid when he does his homework wrong? |
The same line of reasoning which gives you the right to preach whatever you want from a soapbox on a street corner but not the right to punch somebody in the nose. And the fact that physical abuse does predictable, measurable, and permanent damage to children. Beliefs on the other hand can always be re-evaluated when they grow up. Do you really want the government deciding what ideas are too dangerous for children to be exposed to by their own parents?
| That term is used - by atheists - simply because Dawkins is willing to call religion irrational. |
How can you say that when Kurtz has also written things calling religious beliefs irrational?
| Why shouldn't we discriminate against people who embrace irrationality as political and business leaders? |
Because there are brilliant politicians, business leaders, teachers, scientists, doctors, city planners, social works, etc. who hold irrational religious beliefs, thus proving that merely having religious faith doesn’t impair one’s ability to be an incredibly productive and valuable person to society. Discrimination against someone for being religious when it is clear that their religion isn’t clouding their professional judgment is irrational bigotry.
| Good grief, that's the primary connotation - the discussion-stopper - behind the term "atheist fundamentalist!" |
That assumes that all fundamentalism is religious by definition. Why assume that?
| And there's the "smart once, smart always" fallacy. But by your own statements, marf, Kurtz is definitely a moron if his goal was further discussion "among friends" when he used the term "atheist fundamentalist." |
Kurtz may not be smart always, but he most certainly does have a sophisticated understanding of both “fundamentalism” and “atheism”, and isn’t a moron when it comes to topics that he’s dedicated his life to contemplating, studying, and writing and speaking about. So PZ’s claim that anyone who uses the term “atheist fundamentalist” doesn’t know what the two words mean is off. The same goes for Epstein (who PZ’s insult was intended for.) But of course I suspect PZ is exaggerating (I give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn’t actually think Epstein and Kurtz are actual morons) because he was mad.
They’re all so damn desperate for attention.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 19:11:59 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote:
Seriously, wtf Marf? Do you honestly think it's coincidence that most of the disparaging terms used to describe atheists have primarily religious connotations? Fundamentalist. Dogmatic. Proselyting. Oh, and let's not forget "militant," a term used by both E.O Wilson and Michael Ruse in that Washington Post article you linked.
So we're to believe that none of these words are trying to compare outspoken atheists to religious fanatics? |
Compare? Of course they are meant to compare! When the hell did I deny that they were being likened to religious fundamentalists in some respects. Our argument on this forum is over what characteristics of fundamentalism are being attributed to them.
| They clearly are saying that the New Atheists have created a cult of personality, a religion, and not a movement based on true skepticism. |
That gets away from what we have been discussing here, but it’s definitely true. As brilliant as the horsemen are (well, three out of the four. I think Harris a bit of a hack) they have become the objects of hero worship by mobs of less-than-skeptical atheists. There’s a good quote from Bertrand Russell about this phenomenon: “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”
| It's not just a criticism of the tone of our message, but of the personal motivations and mental clarity of those within the movement. Kurtz and the other critics are quite clearly indicating that they think we're behaving irrationally, on emotion and without thought exactly like brainwashed, religious, zealous, militant terrorists who want to impose their will on others through force. |
I think you are wildly overreacting to the point of insulting religious fundamentalists, few of whom are terrorists who want to impose their will on others through force.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 20:08:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Compare? Of course they are meant to compare! When the hell did I deny that they were being likened to religious fundamentalists in some respects. Our argument on this forum is over what characteristics of fundamentalism are being attributed to them. |
Ok, compare was the wrong word, since they are clearly doing more than that. They are equating new atheism with religion. The supposed "irony" being pointed out is that the new atheists are exactly like the fundies they seek to displace. So accomodationist atheists are accusing new atheists of being followers of a "religion." This is a plain fact. I have no idea why you continue to pretend that isn't what's being said.
| They clearly are saying that the New Atheists have created a cult of personality, a religion, and not a movement based on true skepticism. |
That gets away from what we have been discussing here, but it’s definitely true. |
First of all, it's not "definitely true." It's a false accusation. That you would support such a slander says volumes about your understanding and familiarity with the community you accuse.
| As brilliant as the horsemen are (well, three out of the four. I think Harris a bit of a hack) they have become the objects of hero worship by mobs of less-than-skeptical atheists. There’s a good quote from Bertrand Russell about this phenomenon: “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” |
But the movement largely doesn't appeal to or attract stupid people. Smart, intelligent individuals who find value in the message of the new atheists have been accused of engaging in hero worship, but without any credence that I can see. It's insulting, fraudulent, and derogatory. But you're the ones who claim to want more civility?
| It's not just a criticism of the tone of our message, but of the personal motivations and mental clarity of those within the movement. Kurtz and the other critics are quite clearly indicating that they think we're behaving irrationally, on emotion and without thought exactly like brainwashed, religious, zealous, militant terrorists who want to impose their will on others through force. |
I think you are wildly overreacting to the point of insulting religious fundamentalists, few of whom are terrorists who want to impose their will on others through force. |
I'm not wildly overreacting to anything. I'm pointing out that the slanders being hurled by Kurtz, Ruse, and others are wildly inaccurate. They use terms like "fundamentalist" and "militant" to describe Dawkins. What sort of imagery does that conjure up but a bomb-throwing fanatic? Yet in truth, Dawkins is a mild-mannered, polite, thoughtful man who limits himself to writing books and essays and giving lectures. The accommodations aren't making valid criticisms, they are engaging in demonization and character assassination. Frankly, it's sickening that you would stoop to defend such unethical behavior.
| And actually, it is by criticizing the New Atheists that the other approach does get far at least in how our movement is perceived by the public. If the mainstream public – which doesn’t understand or care about the subtle differences in our approaches and arguments and philosophies – sees us debating among ourselves, we don’t look like one big scary monolith, but rather a more diverse community of independent thinkers. As much as it might sating, using harsh hyberbole like “atheist fundamentalist” causes more of a stir and is more likely to get media attention. And frankly, the likes of the four horsemen are popular and respected enough that they can take it. |
You're right, they can take it. Bitch and moan from the back rows all you like, it really isn't going to change anything. I'd like to think that there's room for a variety of approaches, but right now the accommodations you support are spending all their time and effort hurting what could have been allies. But if that's the way you want it, fine. Just remember that was your side who put the torches to the bridge.
|
"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 - 10/25/2009 : 20:20:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| Technology is the application of knowledge. |
I think that's a rather odd view of technology. Technology isn't just knowledge. There is also a huge amount of creativity and work to transform knowledge into something practical. Of course, this doesn't really matter much for what you were saying.
| I don't see any fundamental difference in your position and Dave_W's Ricky. |
Advancement of technology is independent of the scientific process. It uses a natural selection: That which doesn't work goes away, that which works better has more chance to be passed down. So while the advancement of technology depends upon knowledge, it doesn't care where that knowledge has come from. Thus, the end conclusion is:
That which leads to the most advances in technology is the best source for gaining knowledge.
And of course, we all know this source is science. I find this to be a much more sound way of judging science as a process than saying that it leads to more knowledge.
|
Technology is the application of knowledge. How can it be anything else? Technology is created with, drumroll...., knowledge.
A random example: I spearfish. I use a pointy stick to spear fish. I spend some time thinking about how I can become better at spearfishing and I think up a device that uses a rubber band to shoot my spear instead of me just poking it at a fish. I build myself a spear gun. If I burn through a bunch of prototypes to refine the final design, I'm using knowledge gained via experimentation to refine the technology. Application of knowledge.
I am honestly confused by your confusion. Without knowledge you do not have technology. So it follows that technology is the application of your 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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 21:28:16 [Permalink]
|
Since you'd rather not go 'round and 'round on your preferred definitions of words, I'll try to be brief.Originally posted by marfknox
| Oh, good grief! Appeasement isn't the motivation, it's one of the political tools being used. If you really don't understand that, then it's you who aren't making an honest attempt to understand any of the debate. |
It isn’t only a political tactic. It is also about honestly preferring a more civil discussion and fostering a little more humility within our own ranks. |
Ironically, that's exactly what's meant by the phrase "being politic."| This discussion was about whether Kurtz deserves a hearing on any other points after using the insult "atheist fundamentalist." |
What!? How is that rational? The reason “atheist fundamentalist” ends up being a conversation stopper is because it tends to incite such strong emotions that rational discussion breaks down. It is either an intentionally dirty tactic or exaggeration on the part of the accuser, but that doesn’t excuse the accused from reacting emotionally! |
Wow, marf. Way to blame the victim.| Saying that Kurtz doesn’t deserve a hearing on any other points – no matter how strong those points might be – just because he used an insult… that amounts to picking up your toys and walking away saying, “You hurt my feelings so I’m not gonna talk to you anymore.” |
Since there is no reason to venerate Kurtz as some sort of humanist holy man (no more than we should venerate Dawkins or Myers), and because Kurtz' ideas will propagate anyway (through people who will listen to him), then what point is there to not cutting off an unapologetically abrasive man who is hypocritically arguing against abrasiveness?| Insults have been hurled from both sides – my example of PZ Myers calling Greg Epstein a “moron.” When people on both sides of a debate feel passionate, often insults find their way into the conversation. But mature, rational people find a way to calm themselves back down and get back to the meat of the debate. |
Those flinging the "atheist fundamentalist" epithet seem unwilling to address the meat of the debate. The interesting thing is that people like PZ Myers address the meat and make witty, insulting ripostes in the same paragraphs.| I say that Kurtz meant the term in a way which isn’t inaccurate, and you insist that he did. We have interpreted him differently, and unless he’s here to settle the debate, which he isn’t, I don’t see how we are going to settle it between ourselves. |
Except I have to read fewer definitions before finding one that fits. You have to work at your ad hoc interpretation a lot more than I do. I hope it's worth the effort.| And I thought it was clear, in context, who we were referring to when using the term: the same people Kurtz was calling "atheist fundamentalists." |
Kurtz wasn’t just talking about the horsemen. He was talking also about people who have participated in stunts such as “Blasphemy Day.” |
That changes my points how, exactly?| If Harris were trying to make atheists of people instead of just destroying there pretensiousness, then he'd be proselytizing. |
Oh, bullcrap. When I read “The End of Faith” my outrage was entirely over his attack of even moderate and progressive people of faith. Harris isn’t just out to get rid of religious pretentiousness or certainty. Or if that is his goal, is a pretty damn poor communicator. |
I don't doubt that. Many very smart people still don't understand his point that moderate theists enable the fundamentalists.| Harris constantly associates faith, not blind faith, not fundamentalist faith, but just faith with the most horrific acts of violence. |
Perhaps you need to re-read him. Enabling is not associating.| Why is it so difficult to admit that New Atheism is partially characterized by an attack on personal faith and it does indeed hope to pull individuals away from their religious faith? |
That's not difficult at all, but it's not what the term "atheist fundamentalist" means at all.| If religious faith is harmful, which they clearly argue that it is, then proselytizing atheism is virtuous. |
No, that would mean atheism is virtuous. Whether proselytizing atheism is virtuous or not is a different question, quite like there are plenty of religious people who think their religion is the correct one, but that proselytizing is rude and/or arrogant. Not all Christians are evangelical.
And Hitchens was on the radio today saying that religion shouldn't go away. And Myers was in a movie saying that he's got no problem with people who treat religion as any other hobby. These people are actually much less pro-atheism than I am.| The same line of reasoning which gives you the right to preach whatever you want from a soapbox on a street corner but not the right to punch somebody in the nose. |
Of course, a five-year-old has the ability to just walk away from their parents like anyone can walk away from a soapbox preacher. Brilliant comparison, there.| And the fact that physical abuse does predictable, measurable, and permanent damage to children. Beliefs on the other hand can always be re-evaluated when they grow up. |
Really? A bruise is permanent? A parent's abuse cannot be re-evaluated when a child grows up? Religion does... nevermind. I know already that it's your opinion that religion itself is blameless for all the wicked acts done in its name.| Do you really want the government deciding what ideas are too dangerous for children to be exposed to by their own parents? |
Good grief, marf! Despite my open and vocal contempt for religion, have I ever hinted that it should be outlawed in any way? There are plenty of things that people can legally do to their kids that I find morally reprehensible. It is not my dream that the government impose restrictions on what parents can teach their children, it is my dream that society as a whole will one day find these things so ethically bankrupt that parents will no longer do them with pride and their community's support.| That term is used - by atheists - simply because Dawkins is willing to call religion irrational. |
How can you say that when Kurtz has also written things calling religious beliefs irrational? |
It's easy when it's obvious that Kurtz is obviously very angry and so not being rational himself.| Why shouldn't we discriminate against people who embrace irrationality as political and business leaders? |
Because there are brilliant politicians, business leaders, teachers, scientists, doctors, city planners, social works, etc. who hold irrational religious beliefs, thus proving that merely having religious faith doesn’t impair one’s ability to be an incredibly productive and valuable person to society. Discrimination against someone for being religious when it is clear that their religion isn’t clouding their professional judgment is irrational bigotry. |
Nobody is arguing that a person cannot be a brilliant leader with religious convictions. I am arguing that people without religious convictions would be better leaders. You're effectively trying to accuse me of claiming that these people cannot be good at their jobs while holding any irrational beliefs, which is nothing more than a wild misrepresentation of my position. This is one of the primary strawmen that the so-called "accomodationists" are guilty of on a regular basis. It's old and tired and demonstrates a lack of sophisticated understanding of your opponents' arguments.| Good grief, that's the primary connotation - the discussion-stopper - behind the term "atheist fundamentalist!" |
That assumes that all fundamentalism is religious by definition. Why assume that? |
Because religion is the origin of the term and the primary referent whenever it's used. To assume otherwise is to assume things not in evidence.| Kurtz may not be smart always, but he most certainly does have a sophisticated understanding of both “fundamentalism” and “atheism”, and isn’t a moron when it comes to topics that he’s dedicated his life to contemplating, studying, and writing and speaking about. So PZ’s claim that anyone who uses the term “atheist fundamentalist” doesn’t know what the two words mean is off. The same goes for Epstein (who PZ’s insult was intended for.) But of course I suspect PZ is exaggerating (I give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn’t actually think Epstein and Kurtz are actual morons) because he was mad. |
Let me ask you this, marf: is "atheist" a religious term?| They’re all so damn desperate for attention. |
Wow. Just wow. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 21:33:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, I'd be interested in seeing an example of a technology which did not arise through some application of the scientific method. I mean, it's unlikely that even flaked-stone arrowheads weren't developed randomly. People have used the scientific method before it was ever formalized.
|
I suppose it all depends on what you call "science" or not. If you consider making observations about the world is science, then even random events would be included with in the scientific method (after all, you have to observe this event). Assuming you do not consider this to be science, then I would suggest gunpowder and the microwave to be considered as "random", though there are potential problems with both.
Gunpowder being discovered so long ago, I do not believe it's origin is 100% known. It is said that it was discovered whilst alchemists were trying to discover the "secret of life", but again I'm not sure how certain that statement is.
The microwave on the other hand was discovered entirely by accident while a scientist was doing research. And while you may claim this to be a part of science, I would contend that scientific knowledge did not contribute to the "microwave properties" of vacuum tube he was testing: it was entirely coincidental.
Originally posted by Dude
Technology is the application of knowledge. How can it be anything else? Technology is created with, drumroll...., knowledge. |
When you simply say "application", it seems as if you are downplaying the creativity, ingenuity, and ass-load of work that goes into taking knowledge and making it useful. Perhaps you are not, whatever. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 21:47:11 [Permalink]
|
Shoot, missed two:Originally posted by marfknox
And actually, it is by criticizing the New Atheists that the other approach does get far at least in how our movement is perceived by the public. If the mainstream public – which doesn’t understand or care about the subtle differences in our approaches and arguments and philosophies – sees us debating among ourselves, we don’t look like one big scary monolith, but rather a more diverse community of independent thinkers. |
Actually, theists in the mainstream media are trying to portray the disagreements as a schism within atheism. (Yeah, that's another religious term applied to the unfaithful.)| As much as it might sating, using harsh hyberbole like “atheist fundamentalist” causes more of a stir and is more likely to get media attention. And frankly, the likes of the four horsemen are popular and respected enough that they can take it. |
Yeah, people like Kurtz are being emotional and irrational, but their targets can take it, so it's okay, those who use the term "atheist fundamentalist" can be forgiven for not finding ways "to calm themselves back down and get back to the meat of the debate," especially since their immaturity generates more press.  |
- 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
26034 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2009 : 21:56:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
The microwave on the other hand was discovered entirely by accident while a scientist was doing research. And while you may claim this to be a part of science, I would contend that scientific knowledge did not contribute to the "microwave properties" of vacuum tube he was testing: it was entirely coincidental. |
Actually, let me address what you wrote to Dude, first:| When you simply say "application", it seems as if you are downplaying the creativity, ingenuity, and ass-load of work that goes into taking knowledge and making it useful. |
The creativity, ingenuity and ass-load of work that goes into turning raw knowledge into a practical application is science. The idea that no science occurred between the discovery of what microwaves can do and the introduction of the Radar Range is ludicrous.
Raw observations are not science. Nor do raw observations become technology without science. At the very least, someone says, "I wonder if that phenomenon will happen again under the same circumstances," and that is science. |
- 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 - 10/26/2009 : 00:40:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Raw observations are not science. Nor do raw observations become technology without science. At the very least, someone says, "I wonder if that phenomenon will happen again under the same circumstances," and that is science.
|
That seems like a pretty loose definition of science. So, is simple trial and error science? Were the alchemists scientists? Some were, in a way. The ones who were mixing compounds and grinding concoctions and setting things on fire, but still trying to be methodical about it and taking copious notes. Some of these practitioners did stumble onto beneficial discoveries. Perhaps gunpowder, as Ricky mentioned, but indisputably several other compounds including Hydrochloric and Nitric acid and Potash and Sodium Carbonate.
But these discoveries were always accidental because the alchemists never had the requisite epistemological framework to guide their efforts. They took too much cultural baggage and too many assumptions into their work, which was mixed up with sorcery, astrology, pagan mysticism, Christian theology and the phases of the moon. They were proto-scientists, but I wouldn't call them scientists yet. It would take the formulation of the scientific method before they could start sifting through that trash heap of accumulated "knowledge" to see what held up to scrutiny and what turned out to be horse pucky. In the few centuries since the enlightenment, I think science has done a pretty good job of sweeping out the crap. I know pockets of woo are still everywhere, but theism is really the last thing holding on in any great numbers. It's waaaaaaaaay better than it used to be.
Anyway, my point is, I don't think a caveman making a spear point is doing science. He might be being analytical, he might be using higher reasoning and problem solving, he might even be conducting experiments by trying different materials. But I can't say that that's science. Those are innate abilities. But at that stage it's just instinctual. There's no operating system guiding the thought process. It took the scientific method to really start advancing knowledge at a breakneck speed. I mean if you look at the pace of discovery prior to the Enlightenment vs. from the Enlightenment until now, it's not even close. Something fundamentally changed the course of human history. That something was the invention of science.
In my opinion, of course. I expect there's others here who will make a different argument. I think I remember Sagan saying he considered a cave man making a flint spear point to be doing science, so what do I know?
|
"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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Kurtz ousted from CFI
