Yes, indeed you have, droning being rather your specialty, old boy. However, I'll semi-politely disagree with you. Empirical stances, can in the end, be traced back to solid, rock hard evidence. Now, you may tut about few of us actually going to the lengths of verifying every empirical observation for ourselves, and you'd be right. That doesn't negate that each empirical observation may in fact be reproduced, and experienced empirically. Faith, and godswank, cannot.
Completely off subject, I do so hope I can lift a few pints with you before too long. I'd love to hear that droning in person. On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > You are wrong Chris on an empirical stance not requiring faith. Shape > up boy, I have droned on about this before. There is always some form > of epistemic risk management, current received wisdom being we should > trust evidence ahead of theory. What always seems odd to me about the > godswank (collective noun) is that they are less prone to believe in > my invisible, blue six foot rabbit (with limited powers), than their > invisible, infinitely-sized god with omnipotence, usually on the > grounds that I am some kind of liar, but some ancient guy who talked > with snakes wasn't. The key issues are to do with how much risk you > take with your epistemic base as you move further into theoretical > definition that is empirically testable. That one can have religious > experience seems beyond doubt, what it is much more debatable than > what a photon is (though much may have to be done on that). I suspect > the godswank like feeling special and so jerk up their epistemic risk > taking in order to exclude evidence. Some separate their religious > moments from the rest of their lives, maybe a bit like those who are > only weekend junkies. We can hook people on sensory deprivation > because the visions they have afterwards are so powerful. Whatever we > do in epistemology, trust is involved, including trust that science > isn't just another set of rat-droppings, recipes or laundry lists > written by the prophet while he was chatting up the blue rabbit. > > On 28 Jan, 17:30, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 28 Jan, 15:45, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > nice somersaulting around logic. Here's Your disconnect: You need > > > faith to believe IN something for which their is no proof. To not > > > believe is simply that, not believing until proof is furnished. Just > > > as theists have a problem with understanding what words like dogma, > > > evidence, theory of____, and believe mean and how to use them, you are > > > misusing the term faith in the same manner. > > > > And you have faith in that. Heck, I don't mind being accused of > > having faith. According to Pascal's wager, it's far safer; so I could > > only say, good luck to you. And I really do mean that!! > > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:46 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that there is > no > > > > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > > > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > > > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if someone claims > the > > > > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that claim must be > > > > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that ther eis > no > > > > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any evidence. There > > > > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul is a 'field > > > > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... Yes, I know > > > > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, but that > > > > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means it hasn't > > > > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when Uranus and > > > > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into existence when > > > > the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot thing is > > > > so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've said > > > > before many times, just because you have not detected something is > not > > > > evidence that it does not exist.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
