(April 21, 2013 at 3:00 pm)Love Wrote: This is an excellent and thought provoking question. I had a very interesting conversation with an individual who believed that empiricism and rationalism did not lead to "truth" (in epistemology), primarily because empiricism and rationalism rely on acquiring knowledge via the senses, primarily because all sense data is ultimately subjective to, as it were, the eye of the beholder. For example, if you and I had an interesting rational and logical conversation about a particular topic (and both you and I had an opinion about what we hold as true), how can you prove that your subjective opinion is actually true? Therefore, in this type of situation relativism trumps rationalsm and empiricism for the opinion held by the individual. I also find this with scientific evidence. If two people are viewing the same peer reviewed scientific document that presents evidence to disprove a theory, each person could be interpreting the evidence completely differently from each other. I think these are good examples that show the limits of reason.

I will address your other questions shortly.

Bolding mine-

True enough, two very different interpretations of any given body of evidence could be offered (and this is encouraged). However, one "interpretation" will have predictions and experiments nestled within it - and if one -does work- better than the other, that's the one we go with- if neither, it's inconclusive and we have very strong reasons to suspect that there's something going on that we are not aware of (particularly if two diametrically opposed hypothesis yield the same results). Even in this scenario the strength of the scientific method trumps the subjective nature of our experience. Meanwhile -other methods- don't even leave the starting gate if what we seek as an explanation for any given phenomena. I think that in the interest of full disclosure - one should probably at least give a nod to the failings of any alternative one prefers for any given thing. There may be limits to reason - but I don't see any limit offered here. Meanwhile the limits of -no reason- start at the ground floor and continue no further, because there is nowhere to go from there. Personally, I think that people who prefer something other than reason or the scientific method as a means to gain knowledge are polishing brass on the titanic, not because I think that reason or the scientific method have no limits, but because the alternatives are -complete- non-starters. The limits of what we might choose to call "true" are not specific to any method, they are all encompassing....some methods just appear to have a better chance of getting closer to the podium (and, to be frank, make no claims to the contrary).

(April 21, 2013 at 3:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote: True enough, two very different interpretations of any given body of evidence could be offered (and this is encouraged). However, one "interpretation" will have predictions and experiments nestled within it - and if one -does work- better than the other, that's the one we go with- if neither, it's inconclusive and we have very strong reasons to suspect that there's something going on that we are not aware of (particularly if two diametrically opposed hypothesis yield the same results). Even in this scenario the strength of the scientific method trumps the subjective nature of our experience. Meanwhile -other methods- don't even leave the starting gate if what we seek as an explanation for any given phenomena. I think that in the interest of full disclosure - one should probably at least give a nod to the failings of any alternative one prefers for any given thing. There may be limits to reason - but I don't see any limit offered here. Meanwhile the limits of -no reason- start at the ground floor and continue no further, because there is nowhere to go from there. Personally, I think that people who prefer something other than reason or the scientific method as a means to gain knowledge are polishing brass on the titanic, not because I think that reason or the scientific method have no limits, but because the alternatives are -complete- non-starters. The limits of what we might choose to call "true" are not specific to any method, they are all encompassing....some methods just appear to have a better chance of getting closer to the podium (and, to be frank, make no claims to the contrary).

I agree with you on all points. However, if you delve into scientitic concepts of extreme complexity such as quantum mechanics, the interpretation of the evidence presented leads to extremely complicated disagreements on the fundamental mechanics of the theory. For instance, quantum mechanics has over 25 different interpretations, including: "many worlds interpretation", "Copenhagen interpretation", "quantum information theories" and the list goes on. For theories, in which empirical evidence is observable at the macroscopic scale (in fields such as evolutionary biology, for example), it is much easier for scientists to interpret the evidence in a relatively similar manner. This is obviously not the case in fields like quantum mechanics.

So, I think I'm going to absent myself from this thread since I think we're not going to get anywhere else any time soon. Love, you seem pretty set on what you believe, and I'm sure you realize that we're not going to change our positions either. I hope you don't find this 'lazy.' I just can't muster up the interest. You see, I have a friend who has tried all the same drugs you have, with a completely different interpretation of what happened. Even if I weren't the sort of person who didn't waste belief on things that didn't have quantifiable evidence, that fact alone would make me skeptical of divine experience through drugs. Anyway, I'm not looking to open up a different section of the can of worms. I hope you won't be like some other theists on this forum who seem to refuse to do much except argue with us on politics and religion and never participate in any of the other fun threads where those differences can be laid aside and hilarity had by all. Maybe I'll encounter you on some of those.

Before I unsubscribe though, there's only one thing I want to know, which was asked in your intro thread: why on earth would you think that all the "important questions" had already been answered by science and all other knowledge seeking (beyond medical) was superfluous? I found this exceptionally short-sighted, selfish, and inhumane. Actually, as expressed, I found it utterly stupid. I'm not going to try to change your mind about it, whatever your explanation. Out of sheer curiosity, I just want to know your answer.

Also, this might just be me being grumpy (I've got something in my eye that's causing me to weep out of that one, even though it's not red, but can't even stay open and it's making me snarly), but this is directed at the mods who were involved in the intro thread: in general, it's a little unfair not to be able to ask questions or confront the claims made by people introducing themselves. They stuck it in that thread, and presumably because it's THAT important to them. Maybe we should be more clear that the introduction area is just for that, and they should leave all specific beliefs or things they've come to discuss out of there.

Lastly, if when you mentioned liking photography of natural beauty you meant nature, that's mostly what I've been working on. My boyfriend is a professional photographer - mostly sitting portraits, although he dabbles in weddings/product photography/etc - and I'm the "candid" shooter. I didn't start until last year, but maybe you'll like some of the stuff I've got:

http://500px.com/thesummerqueen

(April 21, 2013 at 4:04 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: So, I think I'm going to absent myself from this thread since I think we're not going to get anywhere else any time soon. Love, you seem pretty set on what you believe, and I'm sure you realize that we're not going to change our positions either. I hope you don't find this 'lazy.' I just can't muster up the interest. You see, I have a friend who has tried all the same drugs you have, with a completely different interpretation of what happened. Even if I weren't the sort of person who didn't waste belief on things that didn't have quantifiable evidence, that fact alone would make me skeptical of divine experience through drugs. Anyway, I'm not looking to open up a different section of the can of worms. I hope you won't be like some other theists on this forum who seem to refuse to do much except argue with us on politics and religion and never participate in any of the other fun threads where those differences can be laid aside and hilarity had by all. Maybe I'll encounter you on some of those.

Before I unsubscribe though, there's only one thing I want to know, which was asked in your intro thread: why on earth would you think that all the "important questions" had already been answered by science and all other knowledge seeking (beyond medical) was superfluous? I found this exceptionally short-sighted, selfish, and inhumane. Actually, as expressed, I found it utterly stupid. I'm not going to try to change your mind about it, whatever your explanation. Out of sheer curiosity, I just want to know your answer.

Also, this might just be me being grumpy (I've got something in my eye that's causing me to weep out of that one, even though it's not red, but can't even stay open and it's making me snarly), but this is directed at the mods who were involved in the intro thread: in general, it's a little unfair not to be able to ask questions or confront the claims made by people introducing themselves. They stuck it in that thread, and presumably because it's THAT important to them. Maybe we should be more clear that the introduction area is just for that, and they should leave all specific beliefs or things they've come to discuss out of there.

Lastly, if when you mentioned liking photography of natural beauty you meant nature, that's mostly what I've been working on. My boyfriend is a professional photographer - mostly sitting portraits, although he dabbles in weddings/product photography/etc - and I'm the "candid" shooter. I didn't start until last year, but maybe you'll like some of the stuff I've got:

http://500px.com/thesummerqueen

No problem Summer, I have greatly enjoyed your contributions on this thread.

Yes, that was a rather flippant response regarding "all of the important questions have been answered". I can understand if you thought it was moronic. I was actually thinking of this more from a moralistic perspective, in that most of us know deep down that we should be good, altruistic, live peacefully and live life fully, yet I feel that we, as a human race, waste a lot of time on futile endeavours to gain what I perceive to be superfluous knowledge. I was not really referring to questions being answered by science.

I apologise if I offended you by calling you "lazy".

I will attempt to engage in some of the more light hearted forum activities, although my sense of humour is unconventional. Things that are designed to be funny, such as situation comedies, I typically find not even remotely funny.

I was, indeed, referring to nature. Thank you for the link, I will certainly take a look.

Take care.

(April 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm)Love Wrote: I agree with you on all points. However, if you delve into scientitic concepts of extreme complexity such as quantum mechanics, the interpretation of the evidence presented leads to extremely complicated disagreements on the fundamental mechanics of the theory. For instance, quantum mechanics has over 25 different interpretations, including: "many worlds interpretation", "Copenhagen interpretation", "quantum information theories" and the list goes on. For theories, in which empirical evidence is observable at the macroscopic scale (in fields such as evolutionary biology, for example), it is much easier for scientists to interpret the evidence in a relatively similar manner. This is obviously not the case in fields like quantum mechanics.

There is no "however". There have been dozens of failed hypothesis in every area of science, that there is uncertainty at the fringe is hardly surprising, and hardly any sort of critique of the method (or description of it's limits). I feel that I'm going to have to mention that I'm a bit of a positivist - at times- and while I see post after post assigning limits to this or that I haven't seen you make any case for whatever alternative you prefer for whatever subject. No amount of "but -a- can't do so-and-so will ever make -b- a viable option. That's work you'll have to do yourself (and I'm willing to bet you'll use reason - and back up your proposition with tangibles and evidence...such as above).

I can't think of a single moral question(let alone an important moral question) that has already been answered to my satisfaction, btw. Feeling "not knowing, feeling, try not to confuse the two) deep down that you -should- do such and such does not even begin to offer an explanation for whether or not you -actually- should do such and such, or why you should do such and such. I think that a more solid conceptualization of these things would be as far from superfluous as knowledge could possibly be.....given that any -you should do this- is only as strong as the -because- that follows it. It would seem to me that in morality, as in science, it isn't only the answer that counts - but the method in which one arrives.

"You shouldn't slap your brother because pixies cry when you do it"
-There are no fucking pixies you shitwit - proceeds to slap the brother who tried to sell him the pixie story-

"I really feel that I've done nothing wrong"
-Duly noted, we the jury find you guilty on all charges and remand you to the custody of the state-

I could go on and on.

(April 21, 2013 at 5:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There is no "however". There have been dozens of failed hypothesis in every area of science, that there is uncertainty at the fringe is hardly surprising, and hardly any sort of critique of the method (or description of it's limits).

I disagree and you have missed my point. The quantum mechanics interpretations to which I referred are not hypotheses, they're theoretical interpretations and mathematical models that have been devised in order to make sense of the available empirical evidence gathered from observations and experiments, such as the "double slit experiment", for example.

(April 21, 2013 at 5:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I feel that I'm going to have to mention that I'm a bit of a positivist - at times- and while I see post after post assigning limits to this or that I haven't seen you make any case for whatever alternative you prefer for whatever subject. No amount of "but -a- can't do so-and-so will ever make -b- a viable option. That's work you'll have to do yourself (and I'm willing to bet you'll use reason - and back up your proposition with tangibles and evidence...such as above).

I have presented examples (such as in post 130 on page 13), in which I have demonstrated that there are some areas where pure rationalism requires supplementation.

(April 21, 2013 at 1:08 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Perhaps believers should lead by example and demonstrate tolerance of atheists. They claim that is their policy but it only became that after it was imposed upon them by civil authority and force. Unfortunately Christian intolerance of non-christians much less atheists goes back to the beginning of their cults and continues to the present day.

Don't start a fight you can't finish.

What?! You want a piece of me? YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME?

Well that would be fine but I'm not sure what you'd like to fight about. I don't disagree that Christians -in particular among theists- could stand to be much more tolerant. However I don't think atheists get a pass on blind faith or rudeness until that happens.

(April 21, 2013 at 1:08 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

me Wrote:Atheism is no insurance against faulty logic. In fact reasoning which starts with atheism as axiomatic suffers from the same narrowness as fundamentalist theism.

Of course it is never insurance against faulty logic. It is absolute insurance against taking imagination and fantasy as facts and physical evidence upon which all logic MUST BE BASED else it is not logic but bullshit.

No it isn't. Is it your fantasy that it is rational to be rational or that you are fully conscious of all the reasons for all your beliefs? If so then you have a faith based belief there which your atheism failed to guard you from falling into. Neither is your atheism responsible for your faulty logic. I'm an atheist but I don't jump to those conclusions. You need to examine your assumptions.

Quote:Although this will be seen as a "cowardly cop out" by some members, I truly believe that there are some things that are completely beyond our comprehension; call it intellectual humility.

To say that there are things beyond our comprehension is not a cowardly cop out. It's a statement of fact and a necessary admission for anyone who thinks of themselves as intellectually honest. There is, however, a subtle but extremely important difference between saying that and saying "there are things we will never be able to comprehend", because you have no way of knowing that. The intellectual dishonesty of such a conclusion compounds when, faced with a lack of comprehension, you decide (on the basis of not one shred of evidence) that your, specific Christian god must be the answer you are sure we'll never find otherwise. There is nothing humble about that, it's nothing more than making up an answer so that you have one. Pointing to God is the cowardly cop out.

I only took mescaline once, but I didn't find it to be too substantially different from LSD. It was little bit less visual, but other than that, not much different.

(BTW, Love, I will look at that video tomorrow.)

(April 21, 2013 at 6:29 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(April 21, 2013 at 1:08 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Perhaps believers should lead by example and demonstrate tolerance of atheists. They claim that is their policy but it only became that after it was imposed upon them by civil authority and force. Unfortunately Christian intolerance of non-christians much less atheists goes back to the beginning of their cults and continues to the present day.

Don't start a fight you can't finish.

What?! You want a piece of me? YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME?

Only a small piece. But the fraction of the population that is atheist is growing. They may remember the intolerance and get some payback. Granted atheists are much nicer people than believers but payback for intolerance is tempting.

Quote:Well that would be fine but I'm not sure what you'd like to fight about. I don't disagree that Christians -in particular among theists- could stand to be much more tolerant. However I don't think atheists get a pass on blind faith or rudeness until that happens.

(April 21, 2013 at 1:08 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Of course it is never insurance against faulty logic. It is absolute insurance against taking imagination and fantasy as facts and physical evidence upon which all logic MUST BE BASED else it is not logic but bullshit.

No it isn't. Is it your fantasy that it is rational to be rational or that you are fully conscious of all the reasons for all your beliefs?

I am fully conscious of the absence of belief. The reasons are immaterial. Having none is simply having none.

Quote:If so then you have a faith based belief there which your atheism failed to guard you from falling into.

Again a hypothetical IF which is not a fact. Therefore there can be no logical conclusion beyond the mere exercise of the rules such as might appear as an exercise in class on logic. If you meant merely the rules can be exercised then maybe you are correct. But in the real world when one starts with a non-fact the conclusion is false.

It is lawful to shoot Syrians.
Richard Dawkins is a Syrian.
I see the rules but it is not lawful to shoot Dawkins no matter how temping at times.

Quote:Neither is your atheism responsible for your faulty logic. I'm an atheist but I don't jump to those conclusions. You need to examine your assumptions.

The absence of belief is an observable and testable fact at least for me from the inside looking out. There is no logic involved. Incorrect assumptions lead to shooting the wrong people or at least for the wrong reasons.