On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:27 AM > > *Subject:* Re: Pluto bounces back! > > You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a > matter of degree: > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Here ethics should play a role in science according to you. I would offer > that ethics finally is derived from humanism, religious views, flavors of > existentialism and other theological phenomena. I agree and think there is > merit in reflecting whether there is a fundamental difference at all. > > > > 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. > > > Agree on most points here. > > > > 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. > > > So what, should we build some camps now? You seem vexed... doughnut > perhaps? > > No, but that does not mean we should all accept claim's that arise from > dogma either. Had, a "free" doughnut earlier (they bring them and usually I > try to avoid them not wishing to become fat, but today, walking by the > table and seeing them all laid out.. beckoning me as I was there holding a > espresso coffee in my hand... impulse won out and I grabbed my 600 calorie > bomb and quite enjoyed it, thank you) > Lol! I too got one today! And because of Liz's recent article, I pondered, but of course didn't have the balls, to walk up to the lady at the counter and say: "I want nothing organic full of weird toxins! To know at least what I get: show me the most neon colored, artificially flavored, purely chemical calorie bomb that you guys have ever made!" But I chickenhawked on it of course, and just took a violent looking neon blue one with weird topping, only to find that it was filled with real blueberry. Meh! > > > I love camping though. > > Me too -- some of the best camping on the planet in the region I live in. > On my list. Time's a bitch. > > > > > > 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. > > > >>Then we can use that method to derive appropriate ethics/theology and > share the results. I don't see much of this happening. > > We should derive our ethical belief systems based on what works rather > than based on ancient texts of dubious origin. > To me, "what works" is huge open problem if we try to get at it in other fashion than merely fishing and then sitting on the cash/influence. I would like to submit a patent application on "everything that works in future", though I wonder about who'd be sitting in the committee. > > > > > >>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? > > > Now it no longer seems you are arguing for "matter of degree"; more like > "fundamental difference reflecting truth (with your capital T)". > > If you choose to view the supposed virgin birth of Jesus on the same > footing as a highly and repeatedly verified hypothesis that of course is > your prerogative, but that I do not does not mean I am just supplanting one > set of beliefs for another. I think it is logical to state that the one is > on firmer footing than the other, for it is supported by much evidence, > whilst the virgin birth is based on accepting some say so. > > > It's perhaps double standard to claim "pesticides are bad example, not > really science, don't be such literal purist..." and then throw back some > relatively convenient example to "debunk religion" in such transparent > manner. > > No it is not a double standard at all. I disagree with your applying some > kind of equivalency to the two separate statements. > Then you might elaborate on what "firmer feet" means to somebody who thinks a bit slow (No V8 upstairs here, Kim). > Pointing out that science can be corrupted and abused -- as it has been > and will continue to be abused by unscrupulous private interests is just a > statement of fact, reflecting the underbelly of less than noble human > behavior. People will try to game any system, including the scientific > method. > Same with religion though. > Religion instead demands -- it does not ask; religion demands -- we accept > all kinds of fairy tales; > But so does science: flat world, ether, Newtonian mechanics, QM, GR, big bang, acceleration, more models coming soon to a theater near you, unless of course prohibited by employers, funding etc. > just on this basis it is transparently inferior to the scientific method > as a means of informing ourselves about the universe we actually do find > ourselves living in. A universe with definite, measurable values and > behaviors. > > Easy to invert, what is more plausible: existence of dark energy or that > people fooling around, without intercourse, could still exchange genetic > material? This is as specious as your example perhaps. > > There was no fooling around in the alleged virgin birth -- God Himself > came down from the sky (or wherever His celestial throne may be) to > inseminate some woman... Joseph was a cuckold... there was no fooling > around (at least on the part of the cuckold dude called Joseph. The bible > is full of fantastical BS -- for example God making the earth stand still > so the Israelite army could have time to finish a battle. > How can you put BS like this crap from the bible, on the same footing as > say the Theory of relativity -- or even the existence of Dark Matter, which > though it is still subject to debate, also presents quite convincing cosmic > evidence to back its case up. > Both science and religion can't do without effective PR department to dumb shit down; hardly a surprise. > > It's definitely cherry picking truths with capital Ts, as non-confessional > theology is not about literal, fanatical interpretation of text in the > first place, just as science is not about merely wearing lab coat and > maximizing profit margin. I need a doughnut now. PGC > > Religion, especially the monotheist varietals, demand obedience to a core > dogma and deity. There is no discussion, no questioning; only blind > acceptance. For this reason alone monotheism, especially, is inferior to > science. > Here you argue with a wall, because we basically agree that both religion and science are misused. As for black and white distinction, I am undecided on the issue and have friends/family on both side, which, besides my reading preferences, is what biases me towards wondering if there really are two sides. Belief seems to fuzz both of them up into something inseparable. Good stuff is good stuff, regardless of domain somehow. But this might just reflect my ignorance, preferences, or taste. Did you note that I was taken to task by both Samiya's "religion overarches science" and your "firmer feet of science versus fairy stuff"? Wtf am I bullshiting... Held back from studio work because of stupid construction in the building for two days. Factualist sons of bitches don't even pay for time we lost. But in compensation had time for alien doughnut and this thread thanks to both of you. PGC > Chris > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
