ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th August 2019, 02:29 AM   #401
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So then what you're saying is that you're just doing a red herring on your own sub-thread about getting some knowledge in other ways then the scientific method?



Cute. Retarded, but cute



1. You're still doing a by association fallacy. I mean, by that kind of logic, Newton spent a lot of time and effort on alchemy, therefore alchemy must be related to science

2. "Related to" is still irrelevant to the topic of getting knowledge by other means than science. I mean, astrology is technically related to astronomy, but that doesn't say much.
One of the clearest signs that the opponent maintains an irrational belief is that he begins to insult rather than argue. You go into that loop repeatedly. It's very significant.

In Newton's time alchemy pretended to be a science. Newton's philosophical deficiencies led him to believe such a thing. Especially the absurd idea that he didn't hypothesize. ("Hypotheses non fingo"). Fortunately alchemy was forbidden in England at that time and Newton was sensible enough to realize that his alchemical research led him nowhere. So he kept his research in a drawer and did not make a fool of himself.

Indeed, astrology is related to science. But not in the same way as philosophy. Astrology tries to predict facts based on data that contradict science. It can therefore be refuted with a little science, philosophy and common sense. The philosophy of science does not pretend to compete with science. Its relationship is of an analytical type. It assumes that science is a mode of knowledge and tries to investigate how it works. It does not pretend to talk about facts or predict anything. If science can refute philosophy it is not with facts, but by demonstrating that a philosopher has misinterpreted scientific theories.

Last edited by David Mo; 14th August 2019 at 02:32 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 02:44 AM   #402
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,126
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Your problem is that you don't make any demarcation between science and non-science. If looking out the window and seeing it raining is as scientific as thinking the theory of relativity, our language becomes a puree. If they are two different things, where is the difference? I would say that in the use of a method: the hypothetical deductive (hypothetyco-deductive)

Of course I do. You can study the mechanics of the engine , learn some science and apply it. But that's not the case I was raising. I spoke of the daily activity of a person who refers to areas in which he is not an expert.

You appear not to have understood me. It could be a language thing, I don't know.

I was agreeing with you there, that a man thoughtlessly and as a matter of habit filling his gas, isn't "doing science", any more than Aztecs doing the human sacrifice thing to get the sun to rise again next day were, although both could be said, very roughly and broadly speaking, to be following the evidence. In this I agree with you and disagree with what I understood Hans to have said earlier.

But done rightly -- which probably no one ever does in practice -- absolutely, filling gasoline in your fuel tank can very well be science, no doubt of that. In this I disagree with what I understand you to have said, about this demarcation thing.

Quote:
I would say that the advance of neuroscience indicates that there is a relationship of dependence between our mental activity and some activities of the brain. But that relationship is far from being detailed and understood for the most part. Establishing those details is more of a program than a certainty.

Sure, I did say "in theory". And sure, that this theory will translate into practice one day is by no means certain, obviously.

Unless you are of the opinion that even in theory such a thing isn't possible, then we are not in disagreement here. Again, probably a language thing: so perhaps you could confiorm this, or else correct my impression about your position on this.

Last edited by Chanakya; 14th August 2019 at 02:50 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 02:52 AM   #403
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,634
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
By the way, in passing, I also question whether it's true that haters must be unhappy. They are likely unhappy as long as those they hate continue to exist, but I'm not sure how unhappy they would be if they are successful.

It would be nice to believe that evil does not bring happiness, but I'm not convinced of that.
I'd disagree, certainly for many of them and say that the destruction of those they hate would probably rob them of happyness. I'm thinking of the communal hater rather than the isolated individual in their parent's basement, but I'd suggest that many people experience some of their happiest moments when part of a group explicitly ranged against something, whether their carrying placards and chanting "Dump Trump" or Tiki Torches and chanting "The Jews will not replace us" (NB. Just in case, I am not suggesting a moral equivalence between the two positions or the actions of the groups) hatred forms a strong bond and being part of a group makes us happy.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 03:37 AM   #404
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Horse swaggle.

You don't get to define the chemical makeup of another person's brain, which is all that love is. If her brain has the proper levels and ratios of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphin she is in love. This is an objective fact.

Whether or not your brain has the chemical makeup to love her back is another thing, but it's an objective fact that is or isn't true.
I regard all you people talking about love as nothing but brain chemistry as proof of my opening post that clever people outsmart themselves.

There may be brain chemistry involved in feelings, but I do not believe love can be so easily dismissed.

For example, it was said by men who fought in the trenches of the first world war that they loved each other more than women. So their love was not biological, but born of comradeship..

People also love their pets, and I loved a bird. I cried when she died, and it takes a lot to drag a tear out of me.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:24 AM   #405
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,157
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
One of the clearest signs that the opponent maintains an irrational belief is that he begins to insult rather than argue. You go into that loop repeatedly. It's very significant.
Oh good, because you produced such gems as "If you don't know what you're talking about, why are you talking?" as early as page 3. So can we add hypocrisy to the list of your qualities?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In Newton's time alchemy pretended to be a science. Newton's philosophical deficiencies led him to believe such a thing. Especially the absurd idea that he didn't hypothesize. ("Hypotheses non fingo"). Fortunately alchemy was forbidden in England at that time and Newton was sensible enough to realize that his alchemical research led him nowhere. So he kept his research in a drawer and did not make a fool of himself.
Nevertheless, your claim was essentially that a short list of scientists have also done philosophy, therefore that means philosophy is important in some way. Then the EXACT same applies to alchemy, alcohol, drugs, or going to titty bars.

You haven't in any way shown that that interest in philosophy also helped in their scientific discoveries in any way. Once you do THAT, sure, THEN you can exclude alchemy for not qualifying in the same way. But until then all you demonstrate is that you make up BS double standards as you go, as usual.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:26 AM   #406
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,848
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I regard all you people talking about love as nothing but brain chemistry as proof of my opening post that clever people outsmart themselves.
Again someone who hasn't been wrong about literally everything they've said so far is gonna have to be the one to telling me I'm "outsmarting" myself whatever the bloody hell that means.

Quote:
There may be brain chemistry involved in feelings, but I do not believe love can be so easily dismissed.
"Yes the Garden is beautiful, but there has to be fairies at the bottom of it" it is then.

Quote:
For example, it was said by men who fought in the trenches of the first world war that they loved each other more than women. So their love was not biological, but born of comradeship..

People also love their pets, and I loved a bird. I cried when she died, and it takes a lot to drag a tear out of me.
That's just pure gibberish. When I get home I'll have my cat walk across the keyboard to give you a proper response.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 07:07 AM   #407
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post


When I get home I'll have my cat walk across the keyboard to give you a proper response.
Don't you love your cat? I know I loved my bird, and she knew it.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg $chippy.jpg (5.6 KB, 144 views)
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 07:44 AM   #408
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,599
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
There may be brain chemistry involved in feelings, but I do not believe love can be so easily dismissed.
What you believe and what is actually the case are two different things.

Quote:
For example, it was said by men who fought in the trenches of the first world war that they loved each other more than women. So their love was not biological, but born of comradeship.
Love between comrades is as biological, and as selected for by evolution, as sexual love.

Quote:
People also love their pets, and I loved a bird. I cried when she died, and it takes a lot to drag a tear out of me.
I've loved all my cats, including the two I have now. Again, nothing but biology is required to explain that love.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 08:15 AM   #409
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,126
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I regard all you people talking about love as nothing but brain chemistry as proof of my opening post that clever people outsmart themselves.

There may be brain chemistry involved in feelings, but I do not believe love can be so easily dismissed.

Why "dismissed", Scorpion? To understand the mechanism behind something is not to devalue that something, surely? I don't see why realizing that chemicals trigger my love will make me value that love any less, why should it? Because those chemicals are triggered by other causes, which in the case of love would be the object of one's love.

On a separate and somewhat lighter note, I don't see that it takes any especial cleverness or smartness to understand this. To actually discover this, sure, but to understand this already discovered fact, probably not. No reason to think that those of us who recognize the chemical basis for emotions are any cleverer than those who don't, IMO.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 08:29 AM   #410
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Why "dismissed", Scorpion? To understand the mechanism behind something is not to devalue that something, surely? I don't see why realizing that chemicals trigger my love will make me value that love any less, why should it? Because those chemicals are triggered by other causes, which in the case of love would be the object of one's love.

On a separate and somewhat lighter note, I don't see that it takes any especial cleverness or smartness to understand this. To actually discover this, sure, but to understand this already discovered fact, probably not. No reason to think that those of us who recognize the chemical basis for emotions are any cleverer than those who don't, IMO.
Seems to me that simple people believe in God, and the power of love, because they can feel it in their hearts. And they do not consider their feelings of love are only due to chemical activity in the brain. They just love. Maybe clever people cut themselves off from those feelings, because they analyse them too much.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 08:32 AM   #411
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,296
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Maybe clever people cut themselves off from those feelings, because they analyse them too much.
Or feel them more profoundly and intensely, because they analyse them enough.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 09:00 AM   #412
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,599
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Seems to me that simple people believe in God, and the power of love, because they can feel it in their hearts. And they do not consider their feelings of love are only due to chemical activity in the brain. They just love. Maybe clever people cut themselves off from those feelings, because they analyse them too much.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/184...-has-sometimes

Originally Posted by Richard Feynman
I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 14th August 2019 at 09:01 AM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 09:01 AM   #413
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,848
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Seems to me that simple people believe in God, and the power of love, because they can feel it in their hearts. And they do not consider their feelings of love are only due to chemical activity in the brain. They just love. Maybe clever people cut themselves off from those feelings, because they analyse them too much.
That's wrong. Again if you're going to convince us you have so new way of looking at the world, you have to stop being wrong.

Whether or not they "consider their feelings of love are only due to chemical activity in the brain" is meaningless nothing.

Reality gives not one toss what you "consider" it to be.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 09:14 AM   #414
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I regard all you people talking about love as nothing but brain chemistry as proof of my opening post that clever people outsmart themselves.

There may be brain chemistry involved in feelings, but I do not believe love can be so easily dismissed.

For example, it was said by men who fought in the trenches of the first world war that they loved each other more than women. So their love was not biological, but born of comradeship..

People also love their pets, and I loved a bird. I cried when she died, and it takes a lot to drag a tear out of me.
What makes you think anyone dismissing love? I haven't read that in this thread.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 09:17 AM   #415
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,157
Actually, let's return to this, to illustrate the whole idiocy:

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
One of the clearest signs that the opponent maintains an irrational belief is that he begins to insult rather than argue. You go into that loop repeatedly. It's very significant.
The only "insult" in the message was in the following part:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know how to tell you that I don't think philosophy is an alternative to science. Here I put it in Swahili just in case:

Falsafa sio mbadala wa sayansi.
Cute. Retarded, but cute
So, care to elaborate exactly which irrational belief would make me call the stunt of writing your backpedalling in Swahili and in big red letters "retarded"?

Oh wait, lemme guess, you were just hoping that if you quote it out of context, you can play some "I'm insulted, therefore I win" card instead of supporting your claims, right? Or in other words, more of your usual dishonest arguing, right?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 09:19 AM   #416
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,161
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/184...-has-sometimes

Originally Posted by Richard Feynman
I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.

Allow me to say this. AMEN
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 09:19 AM   #417
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,916
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Seems to me that simple people believe in God, and the power of love, because they can feel it in their hearts. And they do not consider their feelings of love are only due to chemical activity in the brain. They just love. Maybe clever people cut themselves off from those feelings, because they analyse them too much.

There's nothing wrong with appreciating and celebrating the genuine feelings, practical understandings, and good qualities of "simple people." It's been a popular topic for millennia. (Unless you start getting all patronizing about it. That, too, has been popular for millennia. But so far you've avoided that pitfall.)

Why, though, do you feel it necessary or appropriate to denigrate the understandings of "clever people" at the same time? What's the point or purpose of that kind of adversarial binary thinking? I don't recall Jesus saying "Blessed are the meek, because earnest aggressive people sure are a bunch of jerks."

Sixty years ago I came into this world in the company of my intellectually disabled twin brother. Over forty-five years ago, I came to terms with, not the obvious differences between him and me, but with our profound sameness, which is harder to perceive but which dwarfs those differences. That's led to a lifetime of additional experiences that have deepened my understanding. For instance, for some years (until his tragic early death typical for people with his condition) my best friend was a Down Syndrome man, from whom I learned greater confidence in stressful social situations.

Please, do go on with your interesting thoughts about clever versus simple people. But consider dropping some of your prejudices. They've got you on a very wrong path right now.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 10:03 AM   #418
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,126
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Why, though, do you feel it necessary or appropriate to denigrate the understandings of "clever people" at the same time?

This is something of a sidebar, but, to repeat what I just said to Scorpion, I don't see where the "cleverness" comes in.

Even actually discovering the chemical basis of emotions may not, in this age of institutional research, necessarily involve any especial cleverness, any more than a competent engineer, or stock analyst, or solicitor, or doctor, or whatever.

And even if we do accept that actually discovering the chemical (and neural) basis for emotions does require some above par intelligence, even then, surely simply digesting this already discovered fact does not represent any great intellectual feat.

I don't see why those arguing in favor of this chemical basis are being accused of being clever. It's kind of flattering to 'us', but I don't think it's true.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 10:22 AM   #419
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,126
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Seems to me that simple people believe in God, and the power of love, because they can feel it in their hearts. And they do not consider their feelings of love are only due to chemical activity in the brain. They just love. Maybe clever people cut themselves off from those feelings, because they analyse them too much.

You keep saying this is (or may be) so, and 'we' keep ganging up on you and telling you this (probably) isn't the case, but it occurs to me that both these are unsupported, ipse dixit claims.

I guess the thing to do would be to see if there's research showing correlation between intelligence and acceptance of scientific facts, and negative correlation between intelligence and happiness (or intensity of love).

I'm too lazy to look this up myself, but if by chance anyone's aware of something along these lines, or if some industrious soul would care to check this out, then the results might be interesting to see.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 10:34 AM   #420
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,075
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I regard all you people talking about love as nothing but brain chemistry as proof of my opening post that clever people outsmart themselves.

There may be brain chemistry involved in feelings, but I do not believe love can be so easily dismissed.

For example, it was said by men who fought in the trenches of the first world war that they loved each other more than women. So their love was not biological, but born of comradeship..

People also love their pets, and I loved a bird. I cried when she died,
and it takes a lot to drag a tear out of me.

Well I can totally appreciate that (the highlighted), and I for one strongly applaud you having those strong sentiments towards any animals that become your friends. Personally I think there is something very wrong with the thinking of people who are not compassionate and caring towards all animals, and actual cruelty towards animals is the one thing in the world that I would get seriously angry about.

But just quite generally (and not now about Scorpion's bird, or my cat, anyone's dog, horse, wife, husband, parent, child etc.), just re the word “love” - I'm not sure that concept is either helpful or really accurate when we are talking about any of this. What I think we are actually talking about is just a great deal of physical and emotional attraction, and a great deal of caring and a wish always to stay together etc. But when we use the word “love”, it seems that people imply something far beyond that … so far beyond that it's implied to be almost incomprehensible and beyond reason, description, or understanding.

I don't see any reason or any evidence to think anything particularly incomprehensible, magical or mystical is going on. For example – when it was said earlier that we could use an MRI scanner to detect various chemical, electrical or other changes in a persons brain, I expect you could detect all the same changes if you just showed the person some sexy pictures. You could probably get all the same responses if you just showed a starving person or animal a plate of their favourite food!

OK, so science can probably detect all of those signs. But is there supposed to be something more to “love”? Something we cannot, or have not, detected? If so, then how did anyone ascertain that?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 03:11 AM   #421
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,178
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I regard all you people talking about love as nothing but brain chemistry as proof of my opening post that clever people outsmart themselves.



There may be brain chemistry involved in feelings, but I do not believe love can be so easily dismissed.



For example, it was said by men who fought in the trenches of the first world war that they loved each other more than women. So their love was not biological, but born of comradeship..



People also love their pets, and I loved a bird. I cried when she died, and it takes a lot to drag a tear out of me.
All the anecdotes you quote do not challenge the theory you don't like.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:30 AM   #422
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
You appear not to have understood me. It could be a language thing, I don't know.

(...)

But done rightly -- which probably no one ever does in practice -- absolutely, filling gasoline in your fuel tank can very well be science, no doubt of that. In this I disagree with what I understand you to have said, about this demarcation thing.

It's possible I didn't understand you. Or the other way around.

I'll explain myself better:
The common user who's refueling isn't doing science.
I would say that person is applying practical knowledge.
However, the research team of an automobile company studying the fuel consumption of a new model is doing science.
The question is what makes the research team doing science and not the common user.
Part of the answer is that the research team controls the relevant variables and the common user does not.

Do you agree? Do you think there are other relevant differences between science and non-science?

NOTE: this practical problem reflects one of the most important of the philosophy of science: that of the demarcation of science.

Last edited by David Mo; 15th August 2019 at 06:34 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:31 AM   #423
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post

Nevertheless, your claim was essentially that a short list of scientists have also done philosophy, therefore that means philosophy is important in some way. Then the EXACT same applies to alchemy, alcohol, drugs, or going to titty bars.

You haven't in any way shown that that interest in philosophy also helped in their scientific discoveries in any way. Once you do THAT, sure, THEN you can exclude alchemy for not qualifying in the same way. But until then all you demonstrate is that you make up BS double standards as you go, as usual.
I have explained you why take drugs or make sex is not the same of writing articles on philosophy of science.

This "few" scientists that had made philosophy of science are not a handful of fool. They are the top brass of the scientific revolution in the 20th. I have quoted them to point that philosophy of science is not a rubbish. You cannot to get rid of them with silly words.

Some of them have commented that the philosophy readings helped him to carry out that scientific revolution.

I don't say that much. I say that the philosophy of science is of interest to those scientists who are concerned with understanding the meaning of what they are doing. Science can be done without worrying about the difference between science and non-science; the problem of objectivity and subjectivity of knowledge; the ethics of research with human beings; realism vs. instrumentalism; reductionism, etc. These are issues that concern and interest the people who are affected by them and, as is logical, also some scientists "in their free time".

It seems that Swahili disturb you. I repeat it in English:

Contemporary philosophy neither pretends to guide science nor supplant science nor be an alternative to science. Philosophy of science only wants to discuss what is science. And this is a subject that seems to be interesting to many scientists. Their opinion must be heard.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 10:05 AM   #424
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Their opinion must be heard.
What terrible thing will happen if their opinions aren't heard?

Last edited by JesseCuster; 15th August 2019 at 10:07 AM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 11:51 AM   #425
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
What terrible thing will happen if their opinions aren't heard?
Apocalypse, Armageddon and Trump's re-election together.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 11:57 AM   #426
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,848
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Apocalypse, Armageddon and Trump's re-election together.
Answer the question.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 12:13 PM   #427
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,126
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
...The common user who's refueling isn't doing science.
I would say that person is applying practical knowledge.
Agreed. I said as much myself, twice.

(Which is why I'd suggested, quite literally and not as a put-down, that you may not have understood me, because your responses do not seem to show that you've understood that that's exactly what I told you myself, more than once.)

Be that as it may: okay, this much we do agree on.


Quote:
However, the research team of an automobile company studying the fuel consumption of a new model is doing science.

Agreed. Except, it could just as well be you or me, it doesn't necessarily have to be some "research team", not unless you circularly define anyone who's "doing science" as a research team.


Quote:
The question is what makes the research team doing science and not the common user.

Using the scientific method would be what makes something "doing science". This seems straightforward enough.


Quote:
Part of the answer is that the research team controls the relevant variables and the common user does not.

Do you agree?

Sure. That control is part of the scientific method.



Quote:
Do you think there are other relevant differences between science and non-science?

Obviously. All the other elements of the scientific method. Again, this is perfectly straightforward, at least in principle.


Quote:
NOTE: this practical problem reflects one of the most important of the philosophy of science: that of the demarcation of science.
What you've suggested thus far, seems to be that using the scientific method would amount to doing science, and not following it, not. Nothing particularly profound there.

If all this "demarcation" means is simply a restatement of what the scientific method is, then I think we can take it that you, me, and everyone reading this, is familiar with it. No need to go into it, if that's all there is to it.

But if there's more to this demarcation, as you call it, than this circular re-definition of what the scientific method is, then sure, I'm interested. Rather than you or me googling out links, perhaps you could, if you're familiar with this, outline it briefly here, what it's about?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 12:35 PM   #428
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Apocalypse, Armageddon and Trump's re-election together.
But what will actually happen if their opinion isn't heard such that we must hear it?
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 09:35 PM   #429
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
But what will actually happen if their opinion isn't heard such that we must hear it?
I dread to think.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 09:37 PM   #430
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Answer the question.
The question was rhetorical.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 09:53 PM   #431
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
What you've suggested thus far, seems to be that using the scientific method would amount to doing science, and not following it, not. Nothing particularly profound there.

If all this "demarcation" means is simply a restatement of what the scientific method is, then I think we can take it that you, me, and everyone reading this, is familiar with it. No need to go into it, if that's all there is to it.

But if there's more to this demarcation, as you call it, than this circular re-definition of what the scientific method is, then sure, I'm interested. Rather than you or me googling out links, perhaps you could, if you're familiar with this, outline it briefly here, what it's about?
We agree on the essentials.
We do not agree in that this is a trivial matter. There are people in this forum who think that practical knowledge or simple induction is science. They seem to be unclear about what science really is, even though they adore it as an idol.

The problem of demarcation is not to say "science is science" because what is science is not always clear. For example, ad hoc hypotheses. Hypotheses that are invented for the sole purpose of saving an objection. In principle, an ad hoc hypothesis is unscientific. They are typical of pseudoscientific thinking. However, it has been shown that scientists often use ad hoc hypotheses in their daily work. So what makes the use of an ad hoc hypothesis legitimate? I confess that I am not clear about this. Kuhn made a big fuss by saying that in scientific revolutions science rejects ad hoc hypotheses for reasons that have nothing to do with science. I find it convincing, although I have no criteria to be sure. I need to know more about the history of science than I know.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 10:24 PM   #432
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,126
It seems to me that this philosophy of science business may have been very useful, once, in giving us the scientific method. After all it did not simply come to us through revelation, it had to be thought up, and finessed, by philosophers and scientists alike.

But that was then. Today anyone who has a mind to can check out what the scientific method is. All that remains, it seems to me, is to apply the scientific method and actually "do science" -- and, as lay individuals, to 'do skepticism' and to incorporate this scientific worldview into our lives.

Is there any finessing still left to do, that any scientist, or even any lay person, cannot do, without first having to educate himself not only about the scientific method but, specifically, about the philosophy of science, with its demarcation and other issues? In other words: Is the philosophy of science of any interest today, other than in an historical and purely academic sense?

I would think not, but I'm open to chaging my mind if you can think of concrete examples (of what someone with a detailed knowledge of the philosophy of science can contribute to real issues, that someone who only knows what the scientific method is, but none of this philosophy of science and all of that history, cannot also work out for himself).
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 02:28 AM   #433
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
It seems to me that this philosophy of science business may have been very useful, once, in giving us the scientific method. After all it did not simply come to us through revelation, it had to be thought up, and finessed, by philosophers and scientists alike.

But that was then. Today anyone who has a mind to can check out what the scientific method is. All that remains, it seems to me, is to apply the scientific method and actually "do science" -- and, as lay individuals, to 'do skepticism' and to incorporate this scientific worldview into our lives.

Is there any finessing still left to do, that any scientist, or even any lay person, cannot do, without first having to educate himself not only about the scientific method but, specifically, about the philosophy of science, with its demarcation and other issues? In other words: Is the philosophy of science of any interest today, other than in an historical and purely academic sense?

I would think not, but I'm open to chaging my mind if you can think of concrete examples (of what someone with a detailed knowledge of the philosophy of science can contribute to real issues, that someone who only knows what the scientific method is, but none of this philosophy of science and all of that history, cannot also work out for himself).
Anyone can know what the scientific method is if he has been well informed. How is he well informed? Going to two websites? With a funny youtuber? If you want to be well informed you will have to read something more serious. For example, on the problem of ad hoc hypotheses that I told you. Where are you going to get informed?

It depends on what you mean by usefulness or interest. There are immediate utilities that result in the production of consumer goods and there are cultural utilities that result in the interest of knowledge itself. Each one at its own time. But both are valid. And sometimes they touch each other.

Do you think discussing moral problems is useful? In what sense?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 08:09 AM   #434
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,126
Okay, I ask for a concrete example, and you present a generic example. No problem, let's go with that -- unless you'd care to present a concrete example of ad hoc hypotheses now? Either way works for me.

So go ahead, then, show me how learning about what the philosophy of science can help us decide whether ad hypotheses are scientific, any more than simply discussing this basis the scioentific method itself, and nothing more, can.


Here's my (layman's) view: in general, we can treat ad hoc hypotheses the same as any other hypothesis. That is, we subject them, in general, to the same process that we would any other. True, they bring some doubt to the original hypothesis; but we cannot dismiss all ad hoc hypotheses for that reason.

When it comes to some specific ad hoc hypotheses, then a more specific view can be had basis the opinion not of some philosophers of science, but of practitioners, scientists, working in and familiar with that particular field. They -- or we ourselves, if we can familiarize ourselves sfficiently with that field -- decide if some specific ad hoc hypotheses are worthy of consideration at all.


That's my view. Go ahead, show me how learning about the philosophy of science can help me decide if ad hoc hypotheses in general, or some specific ad hoc hypotheses, can be thought of as "doing science".


eta:
As more morality, et cetera, let's not go down that rabbit hole for now, and focus instead, for now, on these ad hoc hypotheses, that you've yourself brought up, and how the philosophy of science can contribute towards dealing with them, any better than simply knowing about the scientific method, as well as expertise specific to the relevant branch of science, can.

Last edited by Chanakya; 16th August 2019 at 08:22 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 11:43 PM   #435
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
So go ahead, then, show me how learning about what the philosophy of science can help us decide whether ad hypotheses are scientific, any more than simply discussing this basis the scioentific method itself, and nothing more, can.


Here's my (layman's) view: in general, we can treat ad hoc hypotheses the same as any other hypothesis. That is, we subject them, in general, to the same process that we would any other. True, they bring some doubt to the original hypothesis; but we cannot dismiss all ad hoc hypotheses for that reason.
Do you mean that the practical scientist rejects or admits a hypothesis without knowing why? Is it a matter of intuition? Or does he have any criteria?

I see only two possibilities:
Either the scientist has a demarcation criterion or he does not.
If he has a criterion he enters into the "philosophical" problem of ad hoc hypotheses.
If he does not have a criterion, a pseudoscientist has every right to make as many ad hoc hypotheses as he wants. So there is no difference between science and pseudoscience.

This is my profane opinion.
I have put "philosophical" into quotation marks because those who have participated in this debate are often scientists who have switched to philosophy. Popper, Russell, Kuhn, Lakatos, Carnap, Wittgenstein, Piaget, Husserl, Bunge, etc. But we can call this "philosophy" in order to avoid complicate things.

Last edited by David Mo; 17th August 2019 at 12:01 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 12:31 AM   #436
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 21,023
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
What evidence are you talking about? You're out of control.
I will ignore the insult and simply observe the correctness of the quote. You care not for truth, only your juvenile truth.

Absolutism will not smooth your way in the world, it will only make it more difficult.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 12:42 AM   #437
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I will ignore the insult and simply observe the correctness of the quote. You care not for truth, only your juvenile truth.

Absolutism will not smooth your way in the world, it will only make it more difficult.
Thank you, daddy.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 03:35 AM   #438
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The question was rhetorical.
I asked the question. It wasn't rhetorical.

What will happen if we don't listen to the opinions of these scientists whose opinions you think must be heard?
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 07:49 AM   #439
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
I asked the question. It wasn't rhetorical.

What will happen if we don't listen to the opinions of these scientists whose opinions you think must be heard?
The question is now well drafted.

According some of them, they could not have carried forward the scientific revolution of the 20th century. I don't know enough science to evaluate this.

What I know is that at least an important part of today's culture would have been lost: the culture that cares about the meaning of science and pseudoscientific activities. For example, in order to demystify the so-called "syndonology" it is necessary to know why it is not science, even though it has been defended by scientists.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 11:37 AM   #440
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 21,023
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Thank you, daddy.
Juvenile.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.