Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[Republican] Evolution is Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:

The question is how useful is the knowledge produced, if your reasoning is based on false premises?. The question you, apparently, chose to ignore deals precisely with that. How can you expect to use reason to solve questions of morality, if you begin accepting premises that aren't shown to be true? how can you know that any conclusion you reach is probably true, if you're not sure about the truth of your premises?


The question is how would you know what is false premise, unless you are aware of your cultural programming?


This is why there's a thing called evidence and why anyone claiming stuff has a burden of proof they have to fulfill. Of course, we can't be foolproof and it's precisely why we shouldn't believe things dogmatically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

I already did: the linearity of time was discovered by religious practitioners, because it was necessary to explain the apparent long-term movement of the Moon, Sun, and stars (which were variously believed by religions to be entities of great influence upon human events). Don't even bother trying to claim that doesn't satisfy your request, because it does, and nobody wants to waste their time with your usual inane quibbling.


nobody claimed at all that religious practitioners haven't discovered anything. They have. we know that the church used to be a hotbed of research at some times, and at the forefront of thought. but that is not because they were religious; it was because they were doing real science or philosophy.

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics, he was an agustinian friar, are you suggesting the Catholic Chuch's teachings were responsible for that discovery and that it wasn't based on observation and experimentation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
@BK

The movements of the moon, sun and stars were not given to us by prophets or holy books. They were determined by observation and science.

I have no idea what you think you're doing with time but you might want to stop and compare what science has to say about time, and what has been revealed in divine visions.

Irrational beliefs are unable to provide a rational explanation for anything - including the big bang. Agnosticism is not an option.

First, see my last post above.

Second, no, the movements of the heavenly bodies were not initially determined by "science"; there was no hypothesis based on established facts and seeking to confirm or deny something new. Chanting asshats in robes were trying to predict where the gods were moving next so they'd know the most auspicious dates to do things. Again, not all rational thought conforms to the scientific method. In this case, rational but unscientific (indeed, religious) thought produced a valid scientific truth (or at least, one that has been generally accepted to be true, even by scientists, so far): that time is not a cycle but a vector or line.

Also, I answered your question, now you answer mine: explain to everyone how thinking constrained to the scientific method has "successfully explained" time. Let's start with something simple: what it is. Don't forget to show how this was scientifically proven to be.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sugar wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

New knowledge does not have to be created for thinking to be rational or logical. However, much logical thinking outside the realm of science does in fact produce new information. All deduction, induction, or other synthesis, produces new information (i.e., new knowledge").

Science is only a small part of philosophy (one might call it "natural philosophy"), and it's an even smaller part of rational thought, which extends beyond the logical rigor of traditional philosophy and is logically fuzzy (i.e., probabilistic and often intuitive).


You seem to be implying that induction is not scientific, which is false.

No, I'm not, and I cannot even begin to fathom why would think so.

Science is based on philosophy and uses its established thought processes. However, by constraining itself to the physical world, science gains the ability to rely on first-hand observation. This enables to progressive achieve higher and higher certainty of conclusions though experimentation and continued observation. But logical processes, such as deduction and induction are not unique to science, not everything that is physical can be observed, and most things are not physical but abstractions to one extent or another (and to that extent, consideration of them is less "scientific").
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Prenj wrote:
There is one thing that science never answered and that is what is Man.


Are you serious? Science has completely explained what human beings are and where they came from.

No it hasn't. Science hasn't even scratched the surface of explaining the mind, and that's half of what we are.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
I mostly agree with the second part of the post, so i'll cut it here.

You claim that "'physical reality' is not all there is" but i have to question again how do you know that? That claim hasn't fullfilled its burden of proof, so how can someone accept it in rational discourse? If you said "maybe 'physical reality' is not all there is", i'd say "yeah, maybe, we'll just have to keep looking", but you're not, you're affirming that there is more.

Physical reality only actually exists at the quantum level. The rest is nothing but abstractions. I actually wrote a lengthy footnote to that last "wall of text" post about this, but when I tried to post it, the forums ass-fucked me and I lost it.

I'm too tired to go into this now. Suffice it to say that all these abstractions are, to one extent or another, un-scientific, because they are not, in fact, actual, direct observations of physical reality. You might be a physicist and see a ball colliding with another ball, but in true reality that's not what happened at all. In real, physical reality, the two objects actually overlapped momentarily. The more abstraction, the more uncertainty that your observation is what it seems to be. That doesn't make abstract thought less rational; it just means its results are more likely to be less certain.

The less directly observable the abstractions are, the less they fall within the realm of "science". Physics, Medicine, Communications, Computer Science, Education, Psychology, Philosophy and Art are all "valid" and "rational" fields of thought, but they lie at different points along a continuum of abstraction and uncertainty. Your reflection on your feelings about a crow on your window skill are going to be far less scientific, and far less likely to produce information in which you will be highly confident, than your reading of a thermometer outside your door as part of a decision on what to wear.

GabrielYYZ wrote:
Also, on the "God" or "higher power" thing, countless deities have been discredited (i.e. Zeus is not the cause of lightning, Helios doesn't pull the sun in a chariot), so, with that in mind, do you think we should accept the possibility of yet another deity if the people that claim it exists can't seem to produce evidence to support the possibility of its existence?

This, along with everything else you know, should play into your assessment of how likely or unlikely something diety-like might be, or similar questions.

GabrielYYZ wrote:
wouldn't it be rational to wait until there's evidence that takes us in that direction before we assume "everything is possible"? After all, jesus (supposedly) said "everything is possible for him who believes" but belief without reason is gullibility.

I think Jesus was less likely the son of god and more likely a con man who learned his trade from some dude who had picked up some interesting philosophical ideas in India. But he might have been the Son of God. Anything is possible.

We don't even know what mass really is or why things have it. There is an advancing scientific theory based on the study of black holes that says reality only really exists in two static dimensions on the outer surface of the universe, and that our experience, to include the passage of time, is analogous to a holographic projection. Reality is that strange, and anything is indeed possible, to one extent or another. We might [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hears_a_Who!]a Who on some Horton's dust speck[/url], in turn on some Who's dust speck. The best we can do is consider the relative likelihood of ideas based on our experience and what little we know, and to keep an open mind, because one thing that is very, very likely is that the reality we will some day comprehend will bear little resemblance to what is "generally understood" today.


To be honest, i still fail to see why anyone should believe any claims about deities or any other claims without a good reason to do so. Speculations or hypotheses are fine, but dogmatically believing them before that belief is justified by reason and evidence is nonsense.

By the way, the Jesus comment wasn't about Jesus, but about belief without reason being gullibility (or faith, as they call it).

I don't think anybody should believe any claims about deities or any other claims without a good reason to do so. However, there may be "good reasons to do so" (at least to believe it to some extent) that fall short of scientific evidence. I agree that blind faith without logic and an appreciation of uncertainty is stupid. I don't defend religious zealots other than to say they are people too, and some of what they believe is not necessarily crazy and some of it is good philosophy.

I don't really care what anybody thinks about Jesus. I told you what I think: I think Jesus was an illegitimate child who didn't recieve acceptance in his community, so he became a follower of some guy who had been to India and was making his way as a sort of con man "prophet", roaming around and living off those who treated him like a holy man. From what I've read, there were many such men around those times. I think Jesus then started his own franchise of this business and was very good at it.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics, he was an agustinian friar, are you suggesting the Catholic Chuch's teachings were responsible for that discovery and that it wasn't based on observation and experimentation?

No, and why would think so? I said what I said, not what you'd like me to have said.

The primitive druids and clerics who observed the heavens and changed mankind's perception of time were not engaging in scientific thought, conducting experiments, providing or disproving hypotheses. More to the point, they were not trying to understand the physical world; they were trying to understand the gods and their mysterious influence on human fortunes. Mendel on the other hand, was.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics, he was an agustinian friar, are you suggesting the Catholic Chuch's teachings were responsible for that discovery and that it wasn't based on observation and experimentation?

No, and why would think so? I said what I said, not what you'd like me to have said.

The primitive druids and clerics who observed the heavens and changed mankind's perception of time were not engaging in scientific thought, conducting experiments, providing or disproving hypotheses. More to the point, they were not trying to understand the physical world; they were trying to understand the gods and their mysterious influence on human fortunes. Mendel on the other hand, was.


They were trying to understand the world they observed and their (wrong) conclusions lead them to deities, that they were druids or clerics doesn't mean that they didn't rely on observation, not some kind of mystical information network.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics, he was an agustinian friar, are you suggesting the Catholic Chuch's teachings were responsible for that discovery and that it wasn't based on observation and experimentation?

No, and why would think so? I said what I said, not what you'd like me to have said.

The primitive druids and clerics who observed the heavens and changed mankind's perception of time were not engaging in scientific thought, conducting experiments, providing or disproving hypotheses. More to the point, they were not trying to understand the physical world; they were trying to understand the gods and their mysterious influence on human fortunes. Mendel on the other hand, was.


They were trying to understand the world they observed and their (wrong) conclusions lead them to deities, that they were druids or clerics doesn't mean that they didn't rely on observation, not some kind of mystical information network.

Relying on observation doesn't make something "science". You see that it's morning, and you get up. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science". Your eggs have been cooking for three minutes, so you take them out. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science".

Many discoveries about our physical reality have been accidental. Accidents are not part of the scientific method.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics, he was an agustinian friar, are you suggesting the Catholic Chuch's teachings were responsible for that discovery and that it wasn't based on observation and experimentation?

No, and why would think so? I said what I said, not what you'd like me to have said.

The primitive druids and clerics who observed the heavens and changed mankind's perception of time were not engaging in scientific thought, conducting experiments, providing or disproving hypotheses. More to the point, they were not trying to understand the physical world; they were trying to understand the gods and their mysterious influence on human fortunes. Mendel on the other hand, was.


They were trying to understand the world they observed and their (wrong) conclusions lead them to deities, that they were druids or clerics doesn't mean that they didn't rely on observation, not some kind of mystical information network.

Relying on observation doesn't make something "science". You see that it's morning, and you get up. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science". Your eggs have been cooking for three minutes, so you take them out. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science".

Many discoveries about our physical reality have been accidental. Accidents are not part of the scientific method.


BoneKracker wrote:
Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong.


In case you forgot what you posted.

I didn't actually say they were using the scientific method, at least not how we know it these days, i just pointed out that they didn't rely on religion, like you implied. In any case, they were observing things and trying to explain them to the best of their abilities. Whatever they came up with, i doubt it was through divine revelation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics, he was an agustinian friar, are you suggesting the Catholic Chuch's teachings were responsible for that discovery and that it wasn't based on observation and experimentation?

No, and why would think so? I said what I said, not what you'd like me to have said.

The primitive druids and clerics who observed the heavens and changed mankind's perception of time were not engaging in scientific thought, conducting experiments, providing or disproving hypotheses. More to the point, they were not trying to understand the physical world; they were trying to understand the gods and their mysterious influence on human fortunes. Mendel on the other hand, was.


They were trying to understand the world they observed and their (wrong) conclusions lead them to deities, that they were druids or clerics doesn't mean that they didn't rely on observation, not some kind of mystical information network.

Relying on observation doesn't make something "science". You see that it's morning, and you get up. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science". Your eggs have been cooking for three minutes, so you take them out. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science".

Many discoveries about our physical reality have been accidental. Accidents are not part of the scientific method.


BoneKracker wrote:
Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong.


In case you forgot what you posted.

I didn't actually say they were using the scientific method, at least not how we know it these days, i just pointed out that they didn't rely on religion, like you implied. In any case, they were observing things and trying to explain them to the best of their abilities. Whatever they came up with, i doubt it was through divine revelation.

I know what I posted. I was pointing out that he was manipulating definitions for his convenience. The reason you are wrong is that "religion" is not confined to "divine revelation". Thought which includes observations does not have to be science, and religion is not limited to hearing Magic Space Daddy's voice or seeing Burning Bushes. These men were not trying to understand physical reality; they were trying to understand their gods. It was not science, and it happened to result in the production of other very important knowledge about physical reality.

The whole argument is beside the point anyway, because nobody ever claimed religion produced scientific knowledge. mcgruff's question was nothing but a red herring, and I only answered it because it was based on an incorrect assumption and because I wanted to force him to answer a different question, showing that science hasn't answered very many of the important questions we have.

So, I'm still waiting for him, or anybody, to show how science has explained time, and have tried to make that easy by limiting my request to simply showing how science has explained "what time is", and explaining how that was arrived at using the scientific method.

Any time, guys...
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics, he was an agustinian friar, are you suggesting the Catholic Chuch's teachings were responsible for that discovery and that it wasn't based on observation and experimentation?

No, and why would think so? I said what I said, not what you'd like me to have said.

The primitive druids and clerics who observed the heavens and changed mankind's perception of time were not engaging in scientific thought, conducting experiments, providing or disproving hypotheses. More to the point, they were not trying to understand the physical world; they were trying to understand the gods and their mysterious influence on human fortunes. Mendel on the other hand, was.


They were trying to understand the world they observed and their (wrong) conclusions lead them to deities, that they were druids or clerics doesn't mean that they didn't rely on observation, not some kind of mystical information network.

Relying on observation doesn't make something "science". You see that it's morning, and you get up. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science". Your eggs have been cooking for three minutes, so you take them out. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science".

Many discoveries about our physical reality have been accidental. Accidents are not part of the scientific method.


BoneKracker wrote:
Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong.


In case you forgot what you posted.

I didn't actually say they were using the scientific method, at least not how we know it these days, i just pointed out that they didn't rely on religion, like you implied. In any case, they were observing things and trying to explain them to the best of their abilities. Whatever they came up with, i doubt it was through divine revelation.

I know what I posted. I was pointing out that he was manipulating definitions for his convenience. The reason you are wrong is that "religion" is not confined to "divine revelation". Thought which includes observations does not have to be science, and religion is not limited to hearing Magic Space Daddy's voice or seeing Burning Bushes. These men were not trying to understand physical reality; they were trying to understand their gods. It was not science, and it happened to result in the production of other very important knowledge about physical reality.

The whole argument is beside the point anyway, because nobody ever claimed religion produced scientific knowledge. mcgruff's question was nothing but a red herring, and I only answered it because it was based on an incorrect assumption and because I wanted to force him to answer a different question, showing that science hasn't answered very many of the important questions we have.

So, I'm still waiting for him, or anybody, to show how science has explained time, and have tried to make that easy by limiting my request to simply showing how science has explained "what time is", and explaining how that was arrived at using the scientific method.

Any time, guys...


They were trying to understand their gods, the ones that didn't exist? wow, that's fantastic...

They were trying to understand the world around them, they just assumed that the explanation for things was a deity or other supernatural phenomenon. I don't understand how you get to "it wasn't science, so it had to be religion" rationally.

I would prefer it if you demonstrated how something dogmatic, which considers questioning to be blasphemy, can produce any kind of knowledge or understanding about anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

I already did: the linearity of time was discovered by religious practitioners, because it was necessary to explain the apparent long-term movement of the Moon, Sun, and stars (which were variously believed by religions to be entities of great influence upon human events). Don't even bother trying to claim that doesn't satisfy your request, because it does, and nobody wants to waste their time with your usual inane quibbling.


nobody claimed at all that religious practitioners haven't discovered anything. They have. we know that the church used to be a hotbed of research at some times, and at the forefront of thought. but that is not because they were religious; it was because they were doing real science or philosophy.

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


no.

There is a big gap between science and the scientific method and religion. the chinese and greeks and all manner of other people made revolutionary scientific discoveries well before the scientific method was thoroughly articulated. but they discovered things by observation, calculation and reasoning. And of course many of these people were religious, in some cases deeply so, and even motivated by religion (at one point, philosophy was mainly trying to answer questions about religion). We know that. But were they acting as religious people or scientists? Did they discover facts about the stars through measurements and observation or passages in the bible?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
There is a big gap between science and the scientific method and religion. the chinese and greeks and all manner of other people made revolutionary scientific discoveries well before the scientific method was thoroughly articulated. but they discovered things by observation, calculation and reasoning.


I call shenanigans on that one. Most of the breakthrough is intuition. Ever wrote code? Try doing it by "observation, calculation and reasoning". You'd hit deadline sooner then you know what the fuck is going on, then you think you're an idiot for couple of weeks, let it go, watch a movie with a girlfriend (or imaginary friend if you don't have one) and while you are trying to figure out how to eat popcorns without making too much noise, it comes to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
juniper wrote:
There is a big gap between science and the scientific method and religion. the chinese and greeks and all manner of other people made revolutionary scientific discoveries well before the scientific method was thoroughly articulated. but they discovered things by observation, calculation and reasoning.


I call shenanigans on that one. Most of the breakthrough is intuition. Ever wrote code? Try doing it by "observation, calculation and reasoning". You'd hit deadline sooner then you know what the fuck is going on, then you think you're an idiot for couple of weeks, let it go, watch a movie with a girlfriend (or imaginary friend if you don't have one) and while you are trying to figure out how to eat popcorns without making too much noise, it comes to you.


I am no coder, but I have written quite a bit of code and very little of my coding experience involved flipping through the bible. you learned to code by trial and error, trying different things, learning new techniques. that doesn't mean every time you code you run a long experiment. Oddly, I can't think of a less religious experience.

I never said intuition wasn't involved. of course it is. I never said religion couldn't inspire people. I am saying that taking assertions from old texts on faith doesn't get us very far. that's all. if you read about how some of the revolutionary charting of the heavenly bodies were done, it was done by some pretty crazy meticulous calculation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

I already did: the linearity of time was discovered by religious practitioners, because it was necessary to explain the apparent long-term movement of the Moon, Sun, and stars (which were variously believed by religions to be entities of great influence upon human events). Don't even bother trying to claim that doesn't satisfy your request, because it does, and nobody wants to waste their time with your usual inane quibbling.


nobody claimed at all that religious practitioners haven't discovered anything. They have. we know that the church used to be a hotbed of research at some times, and at the forefront of thought. but that is not because they were religious; it was because they were doing real science or philosophy.

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


no.

There is a big gap between science and the scientific method and religion. the chinese and greeks and all manner of other people made revolutionary scientific discoveries well before the scientific method was thoroughly articulated. but they discovered things by observation, calculation and reasoning. And of course many of these people were religious, in some cases deeply so, and even motivated by religion (at one point, philosophy was mainly trying to answer questions about religion). We know that. But were they acting as religious people or scientists? Did they discover facts about the stars through measurements and observation or passages in the bible?

You are manipulating definitions for your convenience. Now you are saying that science is not a method but a body of information, and that religion is not a body of information but a method, when the truth is closer to the opposite. You can't call masturbation philosophy just because it dawned on you that you're a loser while you were doing it, and you can't call religious activity science just because it wasn't wrong.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


Gregor Mendel is considered the father of genetics, he was an agustinian friar, are you suggesting the Catholic Chuch's teachings were responsible for that discovery and that it wasn't based on observation and experimentation?

No, and why would think so? I said what I said, not what you'd like me to have said.

The primitive druids and clerics who observed the heavens and changed mankind's perception of time were not engaging in scientific thought, conducting experiments, providing or disproving hypotheses. More to the point, they were not trying to understand the physical world; they were trying to understand the gods and their mysterious influence on human fortunes. Mendel on the other hand, was.


They were trying to understand the world they observed and their (wrong) conclusions lead them to deities, that they were druids or clerics doesn't mean that they didn't rely on observation, not some kind of mystical information network.

Relying on observation doesn't make something "science". You see that it's morning, and you get up. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science". Your eggs have been cooking for three minutes, so you take them out. That's a decision based on observation, but it's not "science".

Many discoveries about our physical reality have been accidental. Accidents are not part of the scientific method.


BoneKracker wrote:
Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong.


In case you forgot what you posted.

I didn't actually say they were using the scientific method, at least not how we know it these days, i just pointed out that they didn't rely on religion, like you implied. In any case, they were observing things and trying to explain them to the best of their abilities. Whatever they came up with, i doubt it was through divine revelation.

I know what I posted. I was pointing out that he was manipulating definitions for his convenience. The reason you are wrong is that "religion" is not confined to "divine revelation". Thought which includes observations does not have to be science, and religion is not limited to hearing Magic Space Daddy's voice or seeing Burning Bushes. These men were not trying to understand physical reality; they were trying to understand their gods. It was not science, and it happened to result in the production of other very important knowledge about physical reality.

The whole argument is beside the point anyway, because nobody ever claimed religion produced scientific knowledge. mcgruff's question was nothing but a red herring, and I only answered it because it was based on an incorrect assumption and because I wanted to force him to answer a different question, showing that science hasn't answered very many of the important questions we have.

So, I'm still waiting for him, or anybody, to show how science has explained time, and have tried to make that easy by limiting my request to simply showing how science has explained "what time is", and explaining how that was arrived at using the scientific method.

Any time, guys...


They were trying to understand their gods, the ones that didn't exist? wow, that's fantastic...

They were trying to understand the world around them, they just assumed that the explanation for things was a deity or other supernatural phenomenon. I don't understand how you get to "it wasn't science, so it had to be religion" rationally.

I would prefer it if you demonstrated how something dogmatic, which considers questioning to be blasphemy, can produce any kind of knowledge or understanding about anything.

I just did. Somebody else added that religion produced much of philosophy (although mcgruff asked specifically what it produced in terms of understanding the physical world (which is silly since that's not what it's about and that's what science is for). You are now also manipulating definitions for your convenience. Religion is no more dogmatic than science. While there are organized religions with dogma they insist is true, the same religions have legions of clerics and practitioners exploring, discussing, and debating their doctrine. Meanwhile, in order to become a "scientist" one must spend a decade or so learning and regurgitating the "right" answers. Then, once you become one, if you have an original thought that deviates too far from the latest flat Earth, you're more likely to be run out of town as an upstarted than embraced.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Prenj wrote:
juniper wrote:
There is a big gap between science and the scientific method and religion. the chinese and greeks and all manner of other people made revolutionary scientific discoveries well before the scientific method was thoroughly articulated. but they discovered things by observation, calculation and reasoning.


I call shenanigans on that one. Most of the breakthrough is intuition. Ever wrote code? Try doing it by "observation, calculation and reasoning". You'd hit deadline sooner then you know what the fuck is going on, then you think you're an idiot for couple of weeks, let it go, watch a movie with a girlfriend (or imaginary friend if you don't have one) and while you are trying to figure out how to eat popcorns without making too much noise, it comes to you.


I am no coder, but I have written quite a bit of code and very little of my coding experience involved flipping through the bible. you learned to code by trial and error, trying different things, learning new techniques. that doesn't mean every time you code you run a long experiment. Oddly, I can't think of a less religious experience.

I never said intuition wasn't involved. of course it is. I never said religion couldn't inspire people. I am saying that taking assertions from old texts on faith doesn't get us very far. that's all. if you read about how some of the revolutionary charting of the heavenly bodies were done, it was done by some pretty crazy meticulous calculation.

Like observations, mathematics does not only exist within the domain of science. I do operations research and systems analysis, which involves both. I make collect and analyze data, create models and simulations, formulate estimates, produce forecasts, solve complex problems and optimize all sorts of things: but what I'm doing is not "science"; it's business.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Prenj wrote:
juniper wrote:
There is a big gap between science and the scientific method and religion. the chinese and greeks and all manner of other people made revolutionary scientific discoveries well before the scientific method was thoroughly articulated. but they discovered things by observation, calculation and reasoning.


I call shenanigans on that one. Most of the breakthrough is intuition. Ever wrote code? Try doing it by "observation, calculation and reasoning". You'd hit deadline sooner then you know what the fuck is going on, then you think you're an idiot for couple of weeks, let it go, watch a movie with a girlfriend (or imaginary friend if you don't have one) and while you are trying to figure out how to eat popcorns without making too much noise, it comes to you.


I am no coder, but I have written quite a bit of code and very little of my coding experience involved flipping through the bible. you learned to code by trial and error, trying different things, learning new techniques. that doesn't mean every time you code you run a long experiment. Oddly, I can't think of a less religious experience.

I never said intuition wasn't involved. of course it is. I never said religion couldn't inspire people. I am saying that taking assertions from old texts on faith doesn't get us very far. that's all. if you read about how some of the revolutionary charting of the heavenly bodies were done, it was done by some pretty crazy meticulous calculation.


Don't be obtuse. Where did I write "flipping through the bible"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
juniper wrote:
Prenj wrote:
juniper wrote:
There is a big gap between science and the scientific method and religion. the chinese and greeks and all manner of other people made revolutionary scientific discoveries well before the scientific method was thoroughly articulated. but they discovered things by observation, calculation and reasoning.


I call shenanigans on that one. Most of the breakthrough is intuition. Ever wrote code? Try doing it by "observation, calculation and reasoning". You'd hit deadline sooner then you know what the fuck is going on, then you think you're an idiot for couple of weeks, let it go, watch a movie with a girlfriend (or imaginary friend if you don't have one) and while you are trying to figure out how to eat popcorns without making too much noise, it comes to you.


I am no coder, but I have written quite a bit of code and very little of my coding experience involved flipping through the bible. you learned to code by trial and error, trying different things, learning new techniques. that doesn't mean every time you code you run a long experiment. Oddly, I can't think of a less religious experience.

I never said intuition wasn't involved. of course it is. I never said religion couldn't inspire people. I am saying that taking assertions from old texts on faith doesn't get us very far. that's all. if you read about how some of the revolutionary charting of the heavenly bodies were done, it was done by some pretty crazy meticulous calculation.


Don't be obtuse. Where did I write "flipping through the bible"?


you were disassociating programming from science. science isn't the issue here. it's doing things using reason as opposed to faith.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
you were disassociating programming from science. science isn't the issue here. it's doing things using reason as opposed to faith.


Have fun in the binary world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:

I already did: the linearity of time was discovered by religious practitioners, because it was necessary to explain the apparent long-term movement of the Moon, Sun, and stars (which were variously believed by religions to be entities of great influence upon human events). Don't even bother trying to claim that doesn't satisfy your request, because it does, and nobody wants to waste their time with your usual inane quibbling.


nobody claimed at all that religious practitioners haven't discovered anything. They have. we know that the church used to be a hotbed of research at some times, and at the forefront of thought. but that is not because they were religious; it was because they were doing real science or philosophy.

Oh, I see. Religion is only "religion" when it's wrong. :?


no.

There is a big gap between science and the scientific method and religion. the chinese and greeks and all manner of other people made revolutionary scientific discoveries well before the scientific method was thoroughly articulated. but they discovered things by observation, calculation and reasoning. And of course many of these people were religious, in some cases deeply so, and even motivated by religion (at one point, philosophy was mainly trying to answer questions about religion). We know that. But were they acting as religious people or scientists? Did they discover facts about the stars through measurements and observation or passages in the bible?

You are manipulating definitions for your convenience. Now you are saying that science is not a method but a body of information, and that religion is not a body of information but a method, when the truth is closer to the opposite. You can't call masturbation philosophy just because it dawned on you that you're a loser while you were doing it, and you can't call religious activity science just because it wasn't wrong.


Science vs the scientific method. They are not the same. The method of religion to which you refer I would call faith.

Are you saying everything done in a church or by religious people is part of religion?

I am not manipulating anything. Perhaps I will back up and not talk about science vs religion and talk about faith vs reason. I don't see much value in the former in explaining much about the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More quibbling. :?

Sounds desperate. Sounds like cognitive dissonance.
_________________
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:

I just did. Somebody else added that religion produced much of philosophy (although mcgruff asked specifically what it produced in terms of understanding the physical world (which is silly since that's not what it's about and that's what science is for). You are now also manipulating definitions for your convenience. Religion is no more dogmatic than science. While there are organized religions with dogma they insist is true, the same religions have legions of clerics and practitioners exploring, discussing, and debating their doctrine. Meanwhile, in order to become a "scientist" one must spend a decade or so learning and regurgitating the "right" answers. Then, once you become one, if you have an original thought that deviates too far from the latest flat Earth, you're more likely to be run out of town as an upstarted than embraced.


You very obviously didn't and are now trying to use the argument that science is based as much on faith as religion and that fails. While you obviously learn what other people discovered, it's not dogmatic and you're supposed to question it and try to falsify it as much as you can. Religion tells you what to believe, how to believe and any questions to the dogma are blasphemy.

You say that religions have practitioners exploring, discussing and debating but, funnily enough, we have never seen the dogma change. What we have seen is religion having a problem with Galileo, for example, when he discovered the astronomical model should be heliocentric, instead of geocentric and we have seen religion have a problem with Darwin, over evolution, only to have to bite their tongues and accept evolution makes sense.

So, yeah, you can keep having problems with the "intelligentsia" and "scyents" and "scientific" thought/ "scientific" evidence (which is bullshit, because there's logical/illogical thought and plain evidence that meets the burden of proof.) But I don't think this will get any more productive than it has been...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 7 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum