Sunday-School Morality

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

In fact most advocates of philosophy can't even agree on what it actually is.

I thought scientists had the same problem. History, math, cosmology?

[mickthinks]

laughter is good medicine.

That depends ... what are you sick with, David?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Fly the flag, its all you got.

Yes, we all know this is your default response to anything I write, just like Rocky's default response to me, after I pose questions that he can't answer without blowing his mind, is to call me a troll.

You and Rocky, in bed together! Perfect!



But who is on top?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

I thought scientists had the same problem.

Not in my experience. The disagreement usually occurs over which area is more important with the physicists pissing them all off by declaring everything to be physics. But there is no question as to what they are trying to do. Explore and explain reality as honestly as they can muster. Not exactly something that philosophers even attempt. How can they? All they have to work with is their minds. And if they go beyond that then they stop being philosophers and become something else. But as I said, the inability to agree on what is philosophy is not the biggest problem of philosophy. The biggest problem is no criterion of preference other than personal preference. And with that kind of criteria why would the ramblings of a philosopher be any more important or noteworthy than the wino in the alley?

Philosophers have somehow come to the conclusion that they know best at how to tell science from pseudo science and have devoted many books of bullshit on the topic. But for some reason when it comes to determining what is pseudo philosophy the best I've seen from them is insults and crude name calling. Present company like davidm are presented as typical examples.

History, math, cosmology?

Okay, and.....this means what?

[1Samuel8]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

The biggest problem is no criterion of preference other than personal preference.

Try to prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And with that kind of criteria why would the ramblings of a philosopher be any more important or noteworthy than the wino in the alley?

Philosophers do not suggest that to be the case.

Methinks you really do not know much about philosophy at all. Perhaps working with your mind is too much of a challenge?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

Perhaps working with your mind is too much of a challenge?

Maybe it is. What is your excuse. You can question my intelligence all you like. Doing so doesn't make you intelligent. Posting intelligent things might be a better idea. Try it if you are able.

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Okay, and.....this means what?

Well, it has come to my attention that each of these disciplines have been controversial as far as their claim to be "science." Don't misunderstand, I am a huge fan of science. I was merely pointing out that internal squabbles like you indicated concerning philosophy actually occur in the field of science, as well. It doesn't undermine science or philosophy.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

Well, it has come to my attention that each of these disciplines have been controversial as far as their claim to be "science." Don't misunderstand, I am a huge fan of science. I was merely pointing out that internal squabbles like you indicated concerning philosophy actually occur in the field of science, as well. It doesn't undermine science or philosophy.

Are you making a distinction between natural history and history? Historians and natural historians know the difference.

As for math, it predates modern science by millennia. And mathematics does not restrict itself to formalisms that have anything to do with reality. So a pure mathematician might think that science was a bit constraining. And lastly, until recently cosmology was mostly speculation and was fair game for all comers, crackpots and philosophers. That has changed over the last fifty years. Cosmology is now mainstream science. The reason is simple. The Big Bang explanation along with GR has demonstrable predictive power.

And it is great that you are a big fan of science. Perhaps you should spend more time learning about it.

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And it is great that you are a big fan of science. Perhaps you should spend more time learning about it.

How much would be just enough? Maybe if I learned that my love for my wife was exhaustively explicable in terms of neurons and chemicals. Perhaps if I stopped thinking that there was anything transcendent about the music of Bach. Maybe that would be enough science. OOOO, I know! What if I persevered until I could understand that pulling the wings off of butterflys had no actual moral content. I'm sure that would complete my enlightenment.

On second thought, maybe you should learn some appreciation for the discipline of philosophy that you so ignorantly disparage. Some humble reflections upon the incredible contribution to thought and the organization of rationality that is philosophy would behoove any of us. A smattering of honest examination of your own discourse and expression would reveal how much you, yourself, rely upon its deliverances.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

How much would be just enough? Maybe if I learned that my love for my wife was exhaustively explicable in terms of neurons and chemicals. Perhaps if I stopped thinking that there was anything transcendent about the music of Bach. Maybe that would be enough science. OOOO, I know! What if I persevered until I could understand that pulling the wings off of butterflys had no actual moral content. I'm sure that would complete my enlightenment.

On second thought, maybe you should learn some appreciation for the discipline of philosophy that you so ignorantly disparage. Some humble reflections upon the incredible contribution to thought and the organization of rationality that is philosophy would behoove any of us. A smattering of honest examination of your own discourse and expression would reveal how much you, yourself, rely upon its deliverances.

Your post is a great example of narrow minded views fostered by philosophy and supernaturalism. A greater understanding of the working of reality in no way diminishes the grandeur and wonder. It only increases it. The fact that your love and emotion is a biochemical response of a social animal after 500 million years of evolution does not decrease the feelings in any way. It only adds to the wonder of it all.

Feynman said it well:

YouTube - Richard Feynman - Ode on a Flower

[Kael]

I really don't see what your objection is, n.a. You may as well object to the study of pure mathematics. Philosophy is the study of thought and reasoning, just as mathematics is the study of numbers, space, et al. Would someone who studies mathematics purely for its own sake, with no thought or care for its practical application, receive the same crass dismissal from you? Why then does someone who studies philosophy? It, too, finds application, often long after it is first postulated or formalized. Again, the concepts of both naturalism and atheism originated with philosophers, and naturalism, at least, is also a much older notion than modern science. You keep saying philosophers will claim everything is philosophy, but I am not contending anything of the sort. At least, no more than I would contend that everything is math. Many things involve philosophy, just as many things involve math, but it is merely one avenue of exploration into reality.

Your stubborn refusal to aknowledge even the tiniest bit of validity in the field, while simultaneously standing on the shoulders (as Newton said) of those who practiced it to build your own view of the universe is, to say the least, perplexing.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Kael

I really don't see what your objection is, n.a. You may as well object to the study of pure mathematics. Philosophy is the study of thought and reasoning, just as mathematics is the study of numbers, space, et al. Would someone who studies mathematics purely for its own sake, with no thought or care for its practical application, receive the same crass dismissal from you? Why then does someone who studies philosophy? It, too, finds application, often long after it is first postulated or formalized. Again, the concepts of both naturalism and atheism originated with philosophers, and naturalism, at least, is also a much older notion than modern science. You keep saying philosophers will claim everything is philosophy, but I am not contending anything of the sort. At least, no more than I would contend that everything is math. Many things involve philosophy, just as many things involve math, but it is merely one avenue of exploration into reality.

Your stubborn refusal to aknowledge even the tiniest bit of validity in the field, while simultaneously standing on the shoulders (as Newton said) of those who practiced it to build your own view of the universe is, to say the least, perplexing.

I have already stated the reasons for my dismissal of philosophy as it exists today as a tradition. Study if you like, it is not as if I can stop you, nor would I do so if I could. How you spend your time is your business. However a word of advice. If you are interested in actual reality rather than the mental masturbation that passes for philosophy then there are better ways to spend your time.

How this got started is general observations about the typical lame ass philosophical apologetics for supernaturalism put forth by GodPossessed. The classic being the need for god to account for morals as well as all the other apologetics for god. (BTW the study of god is a long standing branch of philosophy, nuff said.) Now if GodPossessed wishes to "believe" in god that is his business. But he should do himself a favor and not waste his time using philosophy to justify it. Just proclaim his "faith" and be done with it. Because the typical dishonest philosophical arguments are beneath him. I think he is better than that. And if he has a genuine interest in reality his time would be much, much, much better spent studying science. He just might find that it increases the wonder of reality rather than destroy it. That "belief" in a super being in order to bring mystery to life is childish. Existence already has plenty of mystery and wonder all by itself.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Feynman said it well:
YouTube - Richard Feynman - Ode on a Flower

Indeed! Very cogent philosophical musings from Feynman.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Indeed! Very cogent philosophical musings from Feynman.

It is funny that you should mention that because Feynman was well known for his low opinion of philosophy, perhaps lower than even my own.

What Is Science?

What is science? Of course you all must know, if you teach it. That's common sense. What can I say? If you don't know, every teacher's edition of every textbook gives a complete discussion of the subject. There is some kind of distorted distillation and watered-down and mixed-up words of Francis Bacon from some centuries ago, words which then were supposed to be the deep philosophy of science. But one of the greatest experimental scientists of the time who was really doing something, William Harvey, said that what Bacon said science was, was the science that a lord-chancellor would do. He [Bacon] spoke of making observations, but omitted the vital factor of judgment about what to observe and what to pay attention to.

And so what science is, is not what the philosophers have said it is, and certainly not what the teacher editions say it is. What it is, is a problem which I set for myself after I said I would give this talk.

After some time, I was reminded of a little poem:

A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?"
This raised his doubts to such a pitch
He fell distracted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

All my life, I have been doing science and known what it was, but what I have come to tell you--which foot comes after which--I am unable to do, and furthermore, I am worried by the analogy in the poem that when I go home I will no longer be able to do any research.

There have been a lot of attempts by the various press reporters to get some kind of a capsule of this talk; I prepared it only a little time ago, so it was impossible; but I can see them all rushing out now to write some sort of headline which says: "The Professor called the President of NSTA a toad."

Under these circumstances of the difficulty of the subject, and my dislike of philosophical exposition, I will present it in a very unusual way. I am just going to tell you how I learned what science is.

[Angakuk]

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too loudly.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too loudly.

Well yes, he used to regularly get into shitstorms with the philosophers at MIT and CalTech. To the point where he was asked to just shutup about it and let the philosophers make their pretentious bullshit pronouncements about areas that they had little direct experience in. Because making bullshit statements about areas that you know little about is of course what philosophy is all about. And that is fine. But you couldn't tell that is what philosophy is by all the self important bullshit spread about philosophy. It is not as if philosophy has much to show for its efforts for the last two millennium. A point often made by philosophers themselves. Philosophy was a has-been 1,000 years ago but the bullshit is so thick no one could tell.

[GodPossessed]

OK boys and girls. How many informal falacies can you find in the preceeding posts. Spelling counts - extra points for Latin.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

OK boys and girls. How many informal falacies can you find in the preceeding posts. Spelling counts - extra points for Latin.

Isn't bullshit fun!

Here is a question for you. What makes something a fallacy?

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Isn't bullshit fun!

Here is a question for you. What makes something a fallacy?

I'm sorry, that's too philosophical a question for the scientific team to ask. Next.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

I'm sorry, that's too philosophical a question for the scientific team to ask. Next.

Really, philosophy pretty much takes the fallacies for granted. Why is that?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

I thought scientists had the same problem. History, math, cosmology?

Actually, they all agree--history, math, cosmology, even particle physics with astrophysics.











They all agree that supernatural atheist is a twat.















:p





Sorry . . . keep seeing that at the top of the page . . . could not resist . . . right . . . just . . . forget it.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Really, philosophy pretty much takes the fallacies for granted. Why is that?

So, science is all about the power of observation then? And yet, things aren't always as they seem. So, how does one go about speculating on this, without entertaining any philosophical musings? Or, is "philosophical musings" the wrong choice of words?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So, science is all about the power of observation then? And yet, things aren't always as they seem. So, how does one go about speculating on this, without entertaining any philosophical musings? Or, is "philosophical musings" the wrong choice of words?

You pretty much summed up the philosophical approach. It becomes science when you try to explain the observations and test the explanations against reality and keep score. With the explanations with not so good predictive power being left behind. It is the testing and leaving behind the not so good explanations that separates the philosophers from the scientists.

Because frankly Iacchus as long as you are only held to the philosophical approach even your unusual brand of reality is perfectly acceptable. Because without some method of objectively preferring one philosophy over another yours is as good as anybody else's.

So much for philosophy.

[davidm]

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Actually, they all agree--history, math, cosmology, even particle physics with astrophysics.











They all agree that supernatural atheist is a twat.















:p





Sorry . . . keep seeing that at the top of the page . . . could not resist . . . right . . . just . . . forget it.

--J.D.

All noise, no signal. Is your brain broken?