Lay it all out!

Posts and comments by Tyson Adams

Um, no. Arkenn, you seem to be unfamiliar with the history of that particular example. Particularly you seem to be unaware of how the understanding changed.

But thanks for completely missing my point.

0
Nope. You don't get to redefine things just because you reckon you know better than the people who actually have experience in this field. You are trying to replace the expert experience with your belief, to utilise your own argument points. Or as my argument would have it, you are ignorant and don't understand how knowledge works.
0
Oh my. Now trying to pretend you didn't mess up. Just take the loss and move on. You've got a lot of reading you should be doing.
0
..... My my, you are uninformed. It doesn't surprise me that you can't understand the points I'm making.

FYI, you have at least five different types of senses just in your skin. Depending how you count them it is 14-20 senses. Maybe you should learn some stuff before embarrassing yourself further.
http://science.h.../question242.htm

0
No need to reply, you're just treading over the same flawed arguments again and again.

And lol that you continue to not know that there are more than five senses yet want to lecture others on knowledge.

0
"Agreed upon values"...... Lol. So you agree that I'm correct that we can have knowledge without experiencing it. Thanks for playing.

Also, worth reading the proof of 1+1=2, it shows you that math isn't as simple as you are trying to make out with your reply here.

And yes, it is clear you don't understand post-modernism, I said as much. I also pointed out that it was what your argument was based around. Once again, knowledge I've acquired without having to experience it first hand.

Also, don't try and pretend you didn't make factual errors. I was very clear in pointing out that you were wrong on the number of senses, and that you are lecturing people on knowledge without having any yourself. These are clear mistakes and rather arrogant on your part.

0
That's pretty much nonsense, JTA. And I notice that you've dodged around acknowledging your factual errors whilst trying to assert you know more about this topic than others.

Let's illustrate using a derivative of your own claim that you "i am not arguing 2+2=4 is wrong". How do you know that 2+2=4? How do you know that it won't suddenly equal 5 or 3? You've been told it is the case, haven't you? Do you take that on faith, are you secretly assuming your calculator will one day give you a different answer? When you have two apples and buy two more, do you check every single time to make sure you don't suddenly have 5? This isn't faith based, nor trust, but rather you are tapping into a body of knowledge that has gone before you. You are able to describe 2+2=4 because of learnt knowledge you don't have to experience. Because I bet you didn't write three books of maths proving 1+1=2 like Russell and Whitehead did.

You are making the argument that we can't know stuff without experiencing it first hand, but I'm straight up telling you that you are wrong for thinking that is valid. We build knowledge upon knowledge. We can use old knowledge to create new knowledge. If we can't just learn the old stuff, then we'd have no way of experiencing the new stuff.

I know the post-modernism thing is kinda fun, but you're misapplying it here, and you're failing to understand science and po-mo.

0
Thanks, leipies, that's a good way of expanding on the second part of my first post here.
0
Yes, quite possibly. I don't want to lay the blame at the feet of post modernism, since it does have a lot of merit, but there are people who seem to be using some of the thinking from that to mistakenly believe there is nothing objective. Short of this reality being an illusion, that just can't be the case, otherwise nothing would work.
0
Not sure why people continue to insist that science is about belief with their statements. Do people really not understand what science is?
0
Um, there are way more than five senses. And no, if you think the only way to know stuff is through self experience then you are grossly wrong. That would mean you wouldn't be able to trust your computer to work, or your car, or anything else, because you didn't learn how to make them.

And yes, most of what you have posted is utter drivel. I mean, you just started a post with "five senses" yet want to lecture me on how I'm not understanding stuff.

0
JTA, most of your points have already been addressed, so I don't see the reason for your post other than to grandstand.

I will point out that your final paragraph is false. Suggesting that there is "blind faith" in science fails to understand what science is and does. Your example is emblematic of this, since your statement assumes there is only one way to gain knowledge, and everything else is faith that those observations are true. That's utter drivel. That's the wedge arguments that conspiracy mongers use.

And to compare flat earther's belief with the Earth being a oblate spheroid is a failure to understand the difference between evidence and rejection of evidence.

As to a definition of "good morals", well considering the sentence that statement was used in was suggesting that morals are a shifting set of goalposts, I think you have your answer already.

1
Tiago, agreed. And it is also pretty clear that morals and morality are a societal construct that religion borrows from. The morals of Christianity are drawn heavily from previous religions and prominent philosophical thought at the time of writing. It is clear the morals aren't religious or Christian in origin.

And further to that, religion has often stood in the way of changes to social and moral change. Christianity (as an example to bash) has stood in the way of abolishing slavery, giving women and minorities the vote, etc. So religion can be in direct opposition of good morals because it is often the moral code of a less enlightened time.

2
You haven't actually raised any valid points as yet. That is what I'm trying to get you to understand. Your "arguments" are confounding multiple things. I can't answer a question that is nonsense.

Also, you've accused me of being naive and illogical, yet that is what you are doing and what I'm trying to point it out to you. The sooner you understand how flawed your statements are the sooner we can have an actual conversation here.

And no, science isn't another way to gain power. Not in an individualistic sense at least. If that were true then scientists would actually hold some sway in the world, instead of having to (e.g.) argue for 50 years that we need to do something to stop climate change. At best science gives society power. That power can be used or misused, and this is the part you start confounding with science.

Another point, you keep making some very broad and sweeping accusatory generalisations, e.g. humans aren't selfless or altruistic (Salk gave away polio vaccine, pretty selfless and altruistic use of knowledge). That again shows a level of ignorance of the topic. It also shows again the irrational and illogical arguments you are trying to raise.

1
Actually, you are against science. Your statements here confound a number of things in order to further your "moral" argument. You're trying to point out flaws in a strawman, worse, a strawman that is mixed up with others. E.g. you aren't distinguishing between the business, economics, business people, etc, and the science of finding a cancer treatment. You're trying to assert they are the same thing, when they just aren't.

While science isn't without flaws, you don't even come close to stating a valid argument that addresses one of these flaws. The closest you come is alluding to science being conducted by people (who are inherently flawed) and operating within larger social and economic system.

The fact that you think science is an ideology really just illustrates how little you understand about this topic. Science is a methodology. So before calling someone naive, best make sure you actually have the first clue about the topic at hand.

1
Arkenn, it is interesting that you treat science and scientists as the same thing, they aren't. It is also interesting that you treat scientists as a homogenous group of strawmen.

Your points are not only fallacious, but erroneous. Science and scientists already know there are certain things that are beyond the reach or comprehension. Some things just can't be tested. Some things would take too long to test. Etc.

I'm not sure that referencing Crichton strengthens your point. Citing a known science denier (climate denier, anti-environmentalism) just illustrates further the distorted view of science you have.

Now, morals do not come from religion. Saying that religion, or fear of god or hell, strengthens moral accountability, is nonsense. If that is what it takes you to have morals and moral accountability, then your moral fibre must be worthless. But it also shows that you are presuming scientists aren't moral, or aren't religious, or aren't thinking. None of these are true.

Essentially all of your post amounts to an ignorance informed by those who hate science, or ignorance based upon convenient strawmen you've seen attacked before. I don't mean this as an insult, but as a call to actually engage with science at a more meaningful level. Because at the moment your post is incredibly insulting.

But do tell me more about science going off the rails over the internet. Feel free to ignore the hypocrisy inherent in that action.

2
Most of the moral themes in Christianity predate it and were drawn heavily from philosophy. Hence my previous comment. Worth having a read of Russell's History of Western Philosophy to see the elements.

And I agree, there is definitely a twisting of religion by people. Russell summed it up nicely: "Cruel men believe in a cruel god and use their belief to excuse their cruelty. Only kindly men believe in a kindly god, and they would be kindly in any case."

4
Does it? I'm not sure religion does give us morals. I'd concede that religious institutions have acted as a way of instilling a moral creed to a large group. I suppose it depends what you mean by religion, because there were certainly many times when religion acted as the genesis of philosophical thoughts on morality, or as a distributor of that philosophical thought on morality. But religion has also acted to halt moral progress, especially after education became something that people outside of the church could do.
9
Calling science a faith, or ideology, or something akin to that is at best ignorant, or at worst deliberate misrepresentation. Science knows it doesn't have all the answers, otherwise it would stop. The other models given as comparison are more often, and in some instances quite literally, faith based and ideological and as a result haven't achieved anywhere near what science has. That is false equivalence.

Also, asking the question of should vs can in the progression of science is definitely an issue. That means applying morality to the search for truth (via science or whatever). There is nothing wrong with that. But arguing that science is misused, therefore it is bad, is a criticism that could be levelled at anything.

25
I enjoyed it as well. Just though it ran about 20 minutes too long. Just with a bit of editing they could have easily made it a 90 minute movie. Or they could have dropped that entire scene with the Native Americans, which felt tacked on for no reason.
0