Ahhhh you are correct Fidds, my applogies. On 29 Jan, 16:10, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > That's not a theory, it's an hypothesis. Please don't confuse the two. > > On Jan 29, 3:44 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I read in last weeks New Scientist about an emerging theory of > > gravity. That is stems from a property of how matter is organised, > > the example give was one of water and fludity. One water molocule has > > no fluidity, it is only when many clump together that fludity occours. > > > New ideas, which run agianst the old ideas. As yet there is no > > evidance for this theory, yet it is being taken seriously. > > > On 28 Jan, 22:20, 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
