> On 25 Jun 2019, at 09:27, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Can you tell a progressive Christian (who may be religious in the sense that > they have a belief in God) and is also a progressive Democrat and a member of > ISIS (who is also religious in the sense that they have a belief in God). Do > all theists (progressive Christian and ISIS member) look the same in the eyes > of the "scientific atheist"? > > So scientists have turned science into a religion, but scientists (mostly) > aren't as bad as ISIS members.
Scientific atheism has to be agnostic (atheism). An agnostic atheist will be able to distinguish between a the good guys (the agnostic, the one who does not claim truth, who are open to dialog, compromise, and which search the sharable truth and build from that) and the non agnostic, be them atheists christians, whatever, who are the con artist, claiming to be clever, to know better, and usually using bombs or insults. And by agnostic I mean agnostic relatively to *any* notion of gods, be it an impersonal Tao, or Matter, or a Person of this or other kinds. The scientist is the guy able to doubt, to say “I don’t know” or “I am nots sure”. Science does not exist as a thing per se, and it asserts nothing in any definitive way, except perhaps on elementary arithmetic but that is not my point here. What does exist is a scientific *attitude*, which is a mixing of curiosity, honesty and modesty. A scientist only provides theories, and diverse means of verifiability. Now, the human science are humans, and some scientist will not act as scientist, due to perish or publish human and social rules, and things like that. Pppper’s refutability criteria is rather good, even if refuted strictly speaking by Case and Ngo-Manguelle S.(*). Some refutable theories can be interesting and fertile in discovering other testable theories. Then wth mechanism, it seems that the scientific attitude is the same as the religious attitude, related to the fact that the more you know, the more you know how much ignorant you are. Tasting the truth enlarge the doubt spectrum. Bruno (*) CASE J. & NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive inference by Popperian machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of New-York, Buffalo. > > @philipthrift > > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 1:30:13 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > So Feyerabend can't tell ISIS from NASA or the National Academy of Science > from the Papacy. > > Brent > > On 6/24/2019 10:09 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> "Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over >> time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become >> increasingly an ideology and despite its successes science had started to >> attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible [any longer] to >> come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion." >> >> Epistemological anarchism >> From Wikipedia >> >> @philipthrift >> >> >> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:04:04 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> I think one could be most on the mark by calling this "how bad money chases >> out good money." I joined this list last fall, and in the last couple of >> months it seems to have fallen over to various humbugs promoting nonsense. >> these threads of late have degenerated into pure rubbish, bad thinking >> chasing out good thinking. >> >> LC >> >> On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 10:46:37 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >> I changed the title of this thread, I don't even know what the old one means. >> >> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 8:31 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> >> > the natural transplant you mention might be the result of an analog, >> > continuous process. It would make a difference if all the decimals plays a >> > role in consciousness. >> >> Even if you ignore the fact that it has been experimentally proven that >> Bell's Inequality is violated and you claim there if a difference between >> one Hydrogen atom and another, that is to say somewhere along that infinite >> sequence of digits there is a difference, what you say makes no sense. The >> atoms in my brain HAVE been replaced and yet I know for a FACT I have >> survived; I don't know for a fact that the same is true for you >> but I think it's reasonable to assume it is. So even if there is >> something analog going on inside an atom, if we're talking about >> consciousness and survival it's irrelevant. >> >> >Of course, Darwin theory of evolution would become inconsistent, but >> >logically, we cannot exclude the possibility >> >> If a mathematical statement, even a well formed grammatically correct one, >> contradicts a well established observation then it would be logical to >> conclude the statement does not correspond with reality; after all every >> language can write fiction as well as nonfiction. The fiction could be fun >> to read and the very best might even have some sort of vague poetic >> relationship to a truth, but there is not a literal correspondence to >> reality. >> >> >> Even if a Hydrogen atom has some secret analog process going on inside of >> >> it when one atom gets replaced by another atom, that is to say when one >> >> analog process gets replaced by another analog process, I STILL survive. >> >> > That is the mechanist assumption. You can truncate the infinite decimal >> > expansion in the analog process running a brain. >> >> It's not an assumption it's a OBSERVATION! Atoms in my brain have been >> replaced many many times and yet my consciousness has continued. My only >> ASSUMPTION is that you are like me and are also conscious. >> >> >> So that hypothetical secret mysterious analog process is the Hydrogen >> >> atom's business not mine, it has nothing to do with me. >> >> > Assuming that you substitution level is above the truncation of the >> > decimals used in the atom. But a non computationalist can assert that his >> > consciousness requires all decimals. >> >> Then the non computationalist must logically conclude that he is not >> conscious. I thought solipsists were bad but at least they thought they were >> conscious even if nobody else was, but your non computationalist doesn't >> even think he is conscious. How a non conscious person is able to think of >> anything I will leave as an exercise for the reader. >> >> >>> In which theory? >> >> >> In the very controversial theory that says if I have observed X then I >> >> have observed X. >> >> >You cannot observe a philosophical assumption. >> >> You can observe that a philosophical assumption is dead wrong, such as the >> philosophical assumption that an infinite string of digits in an analog >> process is always needed to continue consciousness. >> >> >> Proof is not the ultimate, direct experience outranks it, and I have >> >> direct experience I have survived despite numerous brain transplant >> >> operations. >> >> > Yes, and that is good for you, but [...] >> >> But nothing! It's good enough for me to say yes to the doctor and it's good >> enough for me to say yes to being frozen. And if >> your experience has been similar to mine, if your consciousness has also >> continued despite your many brain transplant operations, and if you are a >> true fan of logic, then you must conclude it's good enough for you too. >> > Personal experience is not available when doing science, >> >> True, and that is exactly why no consciousness theory ever devised is >> scientific, and none every will be. But theories about how intelligence >> works are most certainly scientific. >> >> >> It doesn't matter if I can communicate my reason for saying yes to the >> >> doctor (or yes to being frozen). I have no obligation to justify my >> >> actions to you or anybody; based on the evidence I have at my command it >> >> is the logical thing to do. >> >> > Personally, perhaps. Not sure about the guy above, though. >> >> I'm not sure about the other guy either, he might be a zombie for all I >> know, everybody except me might be, all I know for certain is I'm not. The >> other guy is going to have to make his own decision, I can't help him, >> nobody can. >> >> John K Clark >> >> > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b8c0ed5-be48-451c-b847-7ca0bd073144%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b8c0ed5-be48-451c-b847-7ca0bd073144%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FA80C843-5EC7-4D85-B703-D2F6D3990D4F%40ulb.ac.be.
