________________________________
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]>
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>From:[email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
>Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 2:00 AM
>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
>
>
>
>On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>This invitation to parse the text for some written truth with a capital T does
>not rise to the same level of experimental verification… e.g. religion does
>not stand on the same footing as science.
>>I would not be that quick. The level of experimental verification? Who's
>>experiment assuming what? Experiments to make plants more genetically robust
>>to withstand even more pesticide? That's science laced with poor theology and
>>high profit margin.
When anything becomes driven by the profit motive all other values become
subordinated. Not disagreeing with that. What you describe is not science it is
greed taking possession of scientific forms and perverting them to further its
own narrow interests. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>> I agree with Liz on this, we cannot NOT assume/believe, for any reasoning to
>> happen at all. But please make me wrong by showing a line of reasoning that
>> doesn't assume a single thing.
You are being a purist. We all begin with the assumption that an external
reality actually exists. So on some level sure everything is based on
assumptions. It is a question of degree.
>>Brent has said things sounding like "doesn't matter, whatever works who cares
>>how and why", to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all
>>ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry.
Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that human
activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is dressed
up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big pharma does
drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results that do not
support the profit driven desired results... this is not science in action. And
I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity is science. It is marketing
perhaps, but it is not science.
>>But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for people
>>to suffer verdicts of science infallibility.
We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of
science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms of
science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept
anything that seems "scientific" as actually being science. When -- I think you
clearly know -- it is not!
That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with overly
untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up with
reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp.
A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat and
producing some study written in scientific sounding language and employing
scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist theology. I am not
proposing that however and apologies if you misunderstood me.
I'm sick of the camp business frankly.
And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it seriously
based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know, then we should
have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science (in the ideal at
least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the humility to accept
that it cannot provide an answer for many questions.
>Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion overarches
>and encompasses everything, including science.
>
>It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly
>deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more
>solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions must
>stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that it is
>falsifiable.
>>You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent weeks
>>display the opposite.
I am not pretending anything. I feel that the experimental method is superior
within the physically verifiable material realm than taking some ancient
person's idealization of reality as literal TRUTH.
>>You don't even have to invoke different standards between human and exact
>>sciences; even in single domains there is debate as to what constitutes valid
>>proof and evidence.
Sure and debate is integral to science. Science, unlike religion does not make
absolute claims... there will always be debate and questioning in science. This
is its strength.
I like the way Logician Julia Robertson apparently put it in one her logic
classes in 1969:
A proof is a demonstration that will be accepted by any reasonable person
acquainted with the facts.
That is a superset of experimental proof.
Contrast/compare with R.L. Wilder:
What is the role of proof? It seems only a testing process that we apply to
these suggestions of intuition. Obviously we don't possess, and probably will
never possess, any standard of proof that is independent of time, the thing to
be proved, or the person or school of thought using it.
All and any claims by any religion are suspect.
>>But as suspect only as the claims of any school of thought, sure.
I disagree. The Laws of Gravity stand on much firmer ground than the Virgin
Mary's alleged virgin birth. Are you really suggesting that these two claims
have equivalent basis for being believable?
Chris
>
>If a book contains no mistakes in the verifiable part, what chances are there
>of it being correct o the non-verifiable part?
>
>Plenty of chances.
In the 1st person private sense that could be wishful thinking in disguise,
yes. In the third person shareable sense, you might want to elaborate. PGC
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
