(September 9, 2011 at 7:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes FNM. Did I misjudge you? (honest question)

Yes, so far I have tried to be reasonable in this debate and haven't dished any insults. At one point I asked if there was a point to all if this, but it was an honest question and wasn't meant to be condescending. So far I have yet to whine or insult, so I don't know why you would tell me to grow up.

You drew Frodo-Ire by standing too close to me. I'll apologize for it..lol.

(September 9, 2011 at 11:50 am)Fred Wrote: I'm sorry you think I was being a dick, FNM. Could you please tell me what part of my response led you to that conclusion? You said you thought the scientific method was based on the principles of materialism and I said this wasn't so. You said all evidence was kicked aside because it didn't meet scientific standards, and I disagreed that this was the case and added that people who aren't materialists are also doing science using the same methods.

Am I being a dick because of what I said or is it with how I said it? If it's the former, I don't know what to say. If it''s the latter, I also don't know what to say because given the context of the stuff being lobbed my way, it's hard to imagine how I've crossed any line, so I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Can you clarify?

it's how you said it. I'm really trying to understand what you've been saying, but you feel the need to reply about "what brass" I have and call my view narrow minded. You reply as if I'm making wild, ignorant claims, but I'm just trying to get you to clarify things for me.

(September 9, 2011 at 2:22 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(September 9, 2011 at 11:50 am)Fred Wrote: I'm sorry you think I was being a dick, FNM. Could you please tell me what part of my response led you to that conclusion? You said you thought the scientific method was based on the principles of materialism and I said this wasn't so. You said all evidence was kicked aside because it didn't meet scientific standards, and I disagreed that this was the case and added that people who aren't materialists are also doing science using the same methods.

Am I being a dick because of what I said or is it with how I said it? If it's the former, I don't know what to say. If it''s the latter, I also don't know what to say because given the context of the stuff being lobbed my way, it's hard to imagine how I've crossed any line, so I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Can you clarify?

it's how you said it. I'm really trying to understand what you've been saying, but you feel the need to reply about "what brass" I have and call my view narrow minded. You reply as if I'm making wild, ignorant claims, but I'm just trying to get you to clarify things for me.

I apologize if my tone upset you, FNM. I'm happy to clarify, and if I lumped you in with the rest of the folks who have been doing the ad hominem and stir bit, my bad.

No problem.

So is what you're saying is that all evidence against materialism is dismissed for fear of nullifying it?

(September 9, 2011 at 4:23 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: No problem.

So is what you're saying is that all evidence against materialism is dismissed for fear of nullifying it?

I'm saying that evidence for something outside the parameters of materialism is rejected by materialists out of hand on a routine basis. And to be clear, I don't mean rejected on scientific grounds, just rejected, period.

One of the ways this happens is the "heads I win/tales you lose" gambit. An experiment is done that does not show results outside of the statistical norm, heads I win.

An experiment is done that does show outside the statistical norm, and there must be something wrong with the experiment, tails, you lose.

When this is pointed out, the only response is, fine, well then what other evidence do you have? It never ends.

Of course, I am in no way implying that all the evidence that is offered is valid, because it surely isn't. I'm just saying that a hell of a lot more scientific progress could be made if the a priori stance of "if it doesn't fit, it ain't worth shit" did not dominate as much as it does.

How would that improve science? There is a lot of shit that doesn't fit.

Fred, plenty of what a guy like me would call "junk science" goes on all the time. It's unproductive. Meanwhile, the type of science you seem to think is so narrow, produces results. From little gadgets to life saving medicine. So, just how much of the time we could spend on life saving medicine, do you think we should spend searching for "insert any unsubstantiated thing here"? That's the calculus right there. We go with what works, because otherwise we're wasting time and money. Hell, most of the time what works doesn't even lead anywhere (and I do share your disappointment with that, but it's the nature of the beast isn't it).

(September 9, 2011 at 11:48 pm)Epimethean Wrote: How would that improve science? There is a lot of shit that doesn't fit.

How would what improve science? Of course there's a lot of shit that doesn't fit. That's what the science part is for, winnowing the wheat from the chaff. That's the whole point. I am saying science would make more progress faster if the prevailing attitude going in wasn't, there simply wasn't any evidence whatsoever. That's just an ass-backwards approach.

It's not a matter of finding one magic bullet piece of evidence to upset the apple cart, it's an entire body of data coming from various directions all leading up to the conclusion that the material pov is suspect.

If the only response you have is, yeah, well what evidence do you have, so that too can be rejected out of hand, well all good, but it doesn't take too many rounds to see that it's just a dance and the only arrow in the quiver.

Happily, others who don't subscribe to the stance also are working on whatever, but the funding is limited because of the dominant pov. Hopefully, it won't always be so.

I still don't understand why you think that isn't or hasn't been done. We didn't get to the point we're at by knowing all the right answers, we've made it here by gradually weeding out the wrong ones. It's the dominant POV because research into things like psychic phenomena and "magic" were unproductive. There's the magic bullet, funding. Guess where funding goes....productive areas of research. Sometimes funding gets cut from one area of productive research and fed to an even more productive area of research (part of what happened to my last two jobs) Suggest something Fred. Let's see if research has been done.