Contemporary Mythologies
by BradfordThe Real Wedge- Out of the Closet links to a blog entry by Jason Rosenhouse containing a comment I'll use for this blog entry. The author uses an internet handle and the comment is not noteworthy because of its source. But the writer repeats often argued positions based on modern mythologies. The ancients were not unique in their attachment to mythology. Westerners have their own although they are loathe to think so. Western mythologies impact discussions of Intelligent Design. I'll dissect the comment to highlight the separation of myth from reality.
There are at least two sources of incompatibility between science and religion:
1. Evidence in religion is considered unnecessary, perhaps even undesirable, in forming beliefs.
Myth. What religions make this claim? It is true that religions are not belief systems grounded in empirical results. Neither are philosophies, political positions, artistic endeavors, conversations and most of the rest of life. Evidence would not likely be considered unnecessary to the dominant religions familiar to western culture. Not when such religions make reference to long scriptural accounts detailing historic circumstances relevant to central doctrines.
2. The conclusions reached by scientific reasoning thus far conflict with the assertions of most religious systems. We have failed to find any evidence that the world was created by any supernatural intelligence,
Another myth. There is plenty of evidence included in different apologetic writings arguing conceptually for God's existence. Judeo-Christian scriptures identify God by character traits as well. Not being persuaded does not equate to "no evidence."
that ghostly souls interact with our material bodies and survive death in some way,
Where is the conflict with science? There have been studies alluded to at Telic Thoughts which substantiate some of the claims related to near death experiences. Not conclusive but neither is it evidence of a conflict with science.
or that prayer or magic of any sort can effect the physical world, to name a few problems.
There is evidence that prayer can impact those who pray. They are part of the physical world. Anecdotal evidence encompasses that prayed for. Not scientifically conclusive. But neither do we have a conflict with science.
As an ex faithist, I'd like to add another point (related to no. 1) that I think is particularly damning.
According to a face-value reading of the Bible, you shouldn't question.
It is better to accept a claim without evidence rather than ask for proof (see for example the story of Doubting Thomas).
Much is left unsaid. Thomas was an apostle i.e. one who lived and travelled with Christ. The commenter chose the parameter of the argument and is bound by it i.e. its evidentiary reference to Thomas. Thomas would have seen the miracles performed by Christ. He would have had a rational basis for concluding that Christ had extraordinary powers prior to the crucifixion. He was not chided for disbelieving that John Doe rose from the dead. His unbelief was marked by prior first hand experiences with miraculous events. IOW, Thomas had extraordinary evidence he chose to ignore.
There are numerous lines in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) that dismiss the value of human reason or wisdom in comparison to the word of God/Scripture.
That human reason would suffer by comparison to the wisdom of an omniscient, all-powerful God is hardly surprising. Mix myths with unsteady logic. Add a dash of empirical idolotry and you have a science vs. religion warrior.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Bradford,
That person seems to conflate "faith" with "blind faith".
So if one does that then the argument makes sense.
Comment by ID guy — November 7, 2009 @ 10:44 am
November 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Succinctly summarized.
Comment by Bradford — November 7, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
November 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Anyone who thinks the Bible says "you shouldn't question" has obviously not read it. Forget "face-value reading" — such a person has clearly not even idly flipped through the Bible at any point. For example, the story of doubting Thomas does not require advanced hermeneutics, fluency in ancient languages, mastery of obscure apocalyptic literary traditions, or comprehensive analysis of the entire Scriptural corpus. It requires reading, at "face value", only a few surrounding verses. Anyone who makes the minimal effort to do so will notice that Jesus does not chew out Thomas for wanting evidence. On the contrary, he readily offers that evidence. The story is damning — but only to the alleged reading-skills of those who can claim to know it and yet come to the exact opposite conclusion of what the text says.
Comment by DL — November 7, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
November 7th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Oh, and the assertion that science has "disproved" prayer never fails to amuse. At least for those who find ceaselessly banging one's head against a brick wall to be amusing. You have to wonder whether anyone who thinks that a miracle can be "scientifically tested" has any idea what a miracle actually is. Or even what science actually is.
In fact, the only thing science could possibly reveal about miracles is that they do happen, by some sort of "gap" argument. Of course, materialists typically don't accept gap-arguments, so that leaves science with nothing useful to say about miracles at all. This ought to be flamingly obvious to anyone who isn't interested merely in regurgitating partisan slogans.
Comment by DL — November 7, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
November 7th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The problem with reasoning from the ‘evidence’ is that such reasoning is basically inductive, and inductive reasoning cannot give us absolute knowledge or certainty; it can only give us probable and tentative knowledge.
For example, suppose a couple of ET alien’s like Dick and Sally from the TV sitcom, “Third Rock from the Sun“, move into your neighborhood. Working uncover, to conceal their identities, they are trying to figure the US Postal system by observation alone. If they lived in my neighborhood, for example, they would discover that the mail seems to always arrive between 11: 00 AM and 1:00 PM EST However, it would be fallacious for them to conclude the mail is delivered everywhere in the US during those hours. They may also observe, that while mail is not delivered everyday, it appears that it can be delivered any day, but after a while they discover it is never delivered on Sunday. And, they are still unaware of the “laws” for holiday delivery or are they aware of the fact that the USPS can by fiat change it’s rules. For example, at this moment the Postal Service is, for real, considering eliminating Saturday delivery. In other words, by relying on inductive reasoning alone, Dick and Sally could come to some confused if not fallacious conclusions about what is possible and impossible.
In the same way, the empirical study of a natural process is, is a cumulative process that is never sufficient, to give us absolute knowledge. It is, furthermore, illegitimate to claim that a philosophical worldview, supposedly based on scientific evidence, is any more certain or reliable than an alternative world view the interprets the evidence differently. And, it is arrogant to argue that the alternative is irrational.
1500+ years ago St. Augustine observed:
“Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.”
It appears that, Mr. Augustine, also understood the limitations of inductive reasoning.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 7, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
November 7th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
In the mind of the author, the two are probably synonymous. All faith is blind.
It's funny how he cites the case of Thomas, when Thomas actually refutes his argument.
Comment by Mung — November 7, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
November 9th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Though not an official position of any denomination I know of, that's the unofficial attitude of many Chrisitans in my circles. Maybe they get that by their interpretation of Hebrews in the New Testament:
I don't see how faith can ever be evidence of anything. Is this not the right way to interpret Hebrews? Or is the author saying, you have zero evidence, and must accept somethings on faith?
Signs and wonders were provided as evidence. Romans 1:8 suggests that Intelligent Design and Creation are evidence to believe in the unseen God.
I recall once expressing my doubts in a Bible study. A girl in the Bible study said to me, "why not just believe?" I thought to myself, rather than criticize her naive view of the world to her face: "what stupid reason to be a Christian. Just believe it because you want it to be true."
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 9, 2009 @ 3:43 am
November 9th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Faith IS evidence.
How do you explain faith?
What is the evidence for "unseen things"?
"Things not seen" manifest themselves through faith. Is it possible that even "science" can deny this?
The author is sharing something profound.
Comment by Mung — November 9, 2009 @ 4:42 am
November 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Here is a link to some papers by Karl Popper that argues against the belief that empirical knowledge (the kind knowledge we get from the so called natural sciences) is any more reliable than any other source of human knowledge.
The following brief introduction gives a succinct description of Popper’s thinking:
So, in other words, to believe that a scientific theory is true requires faith.
I also like this comment from Popper:
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 9, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
November 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
And faith is not only evidence, it's also substance.
Comment by Mung — November 9, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
November 9th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I'm not sure you understood the paper. (By the way, I'm taking your word it's Popper: there's no actual reference.) For example, you apparently missed this:
Hmm… That sounds like scientific knowledge is, in fact, the most reliable source of human knowledge.
It's true that the paper is debunking the concept of induction, which is the idea that empirical knowledge is provably correct, but he's quite clear that he thinks empirical knowledge is still leads to important results.
That's the scientific method. He and Hume and the others are debating the nature of the scientific method, not whether it's dependable.
Yes, it's true, there's a tiny amount of faith involved in putting a glass on a table and assuming it won't fall through the table onto the floor. We've each verified empicially that tables are solid, yet putting something on a table is still an act of faith, in a sense.
It's not at all in the same class as the act of faith you'd be performing if you let go of your glass on empty air and hoped it would float there, though. If you're putting a glass down and you don't want it to fall, should you put it on the empirically verified table or not? Is our experience that the table will hold the glass really no more reliable than any other source of knowledge about tables?
Comment by don provan — November 9, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
November 9th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
You need to read the second essay entitled: “Knowledge without Authority” (1960) Here is the pertinent section:
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 9, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
In his book, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and It’s Scientific Pretensions, David Berlinski, argues that modern science has been subverted by a materialistic/naturalistic ideology. An ideology that maintains, “that the sciences are true– who would doubt it?– and that only the sciences are true. The philosopher Michael Devitt thus argues that ‘there is only one way knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science.’ An argument against religious belief follows at once on the assumptions that theology is not science and belief is not knowledge. If by means of this argument it also follows that neither mathematics, the law, nor the greater part of ordinary human discourse have a claim on our epistemological allegiance, they must be accepted as casualties of war." (p 57)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 11, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
JAD quoting Berlinski:
Berlinski has a delightful way of exposing the pretensions of critics.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I'm sorry, but you're over your head. I don't think you know what empiricism is, so you don't really understand what Popper is saying. The bottom line is really quite simple: Popper was a big believer in science, so if you think you've found him saying something that argues against science, you're in the weeds. Popper was interested in the logic behind what makes science so effective. While he does reject many approaches to characterizing science, including many still popular today, that was by no means to suggest that science was no more reliable than other sources of knowledge.
If you really want to understand Popper, you're better off looking at the other end of his arguments, where he puts forward falsification as the alternative to empiricism. Empiricism actually leaves some small openings which ID exploits to pretend to be marginally scientific. The requirement that theories risk falsification shuts the door on existing ID theory big time.
Comment by don provan — November 11, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Empirical results indicate that the entire edifice of naturalism rests on sinking sand. An evolutionary process presumes rather than empirically demonstrates a plausible replicator trail.
Correct the above foundation and you have your biological falsification of ID.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
The important way to read this is as a definition of "truth". In some contexts — we're back to structural engineering — the only form of truth that's relevant is that which has scientific reliability. It is true that this becomes an ideology — one that's getting increasingly popular, by the way — when one expands this observation to a claim that this is the only truth that's relevant in any context.
Again, we need to ask what he means by "knowing". While I'm reasonably sure Devitt really does think that things beyond empirical verification shouldn't be considered, one can read his statement more generously by calling things we really are all very sure about "things we know about", and then calling other things "things we believe".
The danger in this statement is that it's fairly trivial to demonstrate, rather than assume, that critical parts of theology are not science. And one has to be very careful with one's definitions to avoid "belief is not knowledge" being a tautology. So this line of reasoning is actually quite solid, and many atheists follow it.
(This is actually an interesting rhetorical trick. By reversing the sentence, Berlinski gets religious believers on his side, forcing them to doubt the second have of the sentence even though there's really not much to argue about: most theologians would agree themselves that theology is not science, and almost everyone understand that many people believe many things which are false.)
And this is the bottom line: even if we were to follow and accept Berlinski's reasoning, we find that he reaches a conclusion which is remarkably impractical: it kills everyday life. And he's proud of it!
Comment by don provan — November 11, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
This is a scientific statement which you should take up with biologists. They disagree.
No, you really don't. First, by your logic it would be impossible to correct it. Second, if anyone claimed they'd corrected it, you could just say they hadn't. Third, even if you were forced to concede it had been "corrected", ID theory still would say, essentially, "even though you've shown a non-guided origin, it's still obviously designed based on our analysis of the results." ID theory allows you to forever claim that biologists are missing something, no matter how many "corrections" they make.
Comment by don provan — November 11, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
No don, once again you are incorrect.
Dr Behe has it down in black and white- just start showing the power of unguided and non-goal oriented processes and stop whining.
Do you realize how much of a baby you sound like?
"Oh no ID will forever blah, blah, blah".
Just put up and then we will see what ID does.
And BTW the analysis depends on our knowledge and experience with directed vs undirected processes. So once an unguided and non-goal oriented process/ processes can account for the OoL, all subsequent analysis would take that into account.
However that may also get in the way of all design inferences- everything could be chalked up to chance and necessity.
OK so how can we falsify the notion that unguided and non-goal oriented proceses produced life from non-life?
What is the (a) testable hypothesis?
Comment by ID guy — November 11, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
The ones who are lying for science disagree.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Here is what Sir Karl Popper wrote:
Please note what he said about reliability.
In other words, as I stated earlier, “Popper… argues against the belief that empirical knowledge (the kind knowledge we get from the so called natural sciences) is any more reliable than any other source of human knowledge.”
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 11, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
That about sums it up. No matter what they say, you can say they're lying for science.
Comment by don provan — November 11, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
John,
What do you think his answer is?
Comment by don provan — November 11, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
It's not a matter of what is said. It's a matter of what experimental results document.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
But you said they were lying? How can they lie about experiemental results?
Comment by don provan — November 11, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
They don't lie about the data itself. They lie in maintaining that it conclusively supports side arguments.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Don,
I was commenting on Poppers view, “that there are no reliable” or ideal sources of knowledge “which will not lead us into error.” That is what he said. That is what he meant. That’s the point I wanted to comment upon.
Let’s return to the comment from the Rosenhouse blog, so I can at least make the point I wanted to make.
The person here is appealing to science as some ultimately reliable source of knowledge that makes any kind of religious thinking obsolete.
I would argue that science does very well when we constrain it to the kind of things that science was devised to study. Religion and theology are not those kind of things.
Notice that the person in the comment said, “We have failed to find any evidence that the world was created by any supernatural intelligence…”
By implication, he is taking the empiricist position that there is positive empirical evidence that will explain the origin of the world. Okay, what is it?
I think David Berlinski states the question very succinctly:
“The question:
What caused the universe?
The answer:
Something.”
(The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and It’s Scientific Pretensions, p 63)
So, what is that something?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 11, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
November 12th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Well, on the one hand, I think you're probably correct and this is exactly what he's doing. On the other hand, science generally produces excellent results, so even once we recognize and ignore his absolute position, he still has a pretty good point. You can't just wave Popper around and claim that science is never reliable: you really need to explain why science is an inappropriate way to consider the claims of religion.
First of all, let me make clear that I have no problem with you having that opinion. It's a perfectly reasonable position, and I have no desire to dissuade you from it. Having said that, could you explain exactly why you think religion and theology deserve such a special position? As far as I can see, the only real justification is Tradition. Is that good enough?
Is he? From what I see, he could be saying that we don't know.
If I have no answer, why does that make you feel that your answer must be the correct one? If I were to make up an answer, what would make your answer better than mine?
Comment by don provan — November 12, 2009 @ 4:29 am
November 13th, 2009 at 2:54 am
As to your first point, I never made the claim that “science is never reliable” Rather I wrote above that “Karl Popper that argues against the belief that empirical knowledge (the kind knowledge we get from the so called natural sciences) is any more reliable than any other source of human knowledge.”
As to your second point, while Popper was personally an agnostic, he was not hostile to religion. Indeed in his writing on social philosophy he speaks quite highly of Christian moral and ethical thinking. He never claims that one can reduce moral and ethical thinking to point that it can be analyzed and studied using the same methodologies that we apply to the natural sciences. Anyone who has studied ethics, morality, religion and theology knows that these disciplines are deeply inter-related.
Once again, Popper was neither an empiricist or materialist. Indeed, he was one of the few prominent thinkers in the 20th century who embraced mind/body dualism. As a matter of fact, he coauthored a book with Nobel laureate John Eccles, The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism, which clearly presented his and Eccles’ view.
In the OP this what the commenter claimed:
In other words, science is rational; religion, in particular Christianity, is irrational.
I disagree. The explanations that Christian-theism offers for the origin of the universe, for example, are just as rational as the explanations offered by naturalism/materialism. Here is one such explanation by a Christian philosopher. One only has to poke around the web a little to find several more.
Whether you agree with Craig’s argument or not, I would argue that it’s rational.
I have never claimed that my answer must be correct. I would argue that I believe what I believe because it is a better explanation for why the universe is the way it is. Nevertheless, whatever anyone believes about the origin of the universe, it is by faith. So, in other words, naturalism and materialism are based just as much on faith as theism. Whatever it was that caused the universe to come into existence is something that science cannot answer.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 13, 2009 @ 2:54 am
November 13th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
John,
Forget Popper. We in the modern world have found science to be astonishingly effective. What is it about religion that makes it an invalid target for science?
Why do you consider it a hostile act to apply science to religion?
Of course not. But even as he skewered empiricists and materialists, he still recognized that scientific knowledge is "the best kind of human knowledge we have".
No, in your words religion is irrational. The statement you quote says nothing explicitly about rationality. It claims the following:
1. that religion considers evidence unimportant.
2. that scientific results often conflict with religion when they overlap.
3. that Christianity teaches that the Bible is the ultimate source of wisdom.
We could debate the details, but to some degree these are undeniable statements. But the important question is why you take them as meaning that religion is irrational.
It looks rational to me. Does it consider evidence? No, it just justifies a metaphysical cause that would not require evidence. Does it conflict with science? No, in fact it's main point is to declare the question it seeks to answer out of reach of science. Does it use the Bible as a source? Well, no, and, in fact, it's not Christian at all.
The point being that whether it's rational or not, it doesn't have any of the faults that Rosenhouse was objecting to.
So why do you think it's better? Even at its best, your argument here just says it's as good as any other explanation. All I can think of is that you came into the process assuming it was the answer, either by training or by some spiritual or emotional experiences, things we know for a fact are unreliable to a degree far above the subtle metaphysical reliability Popper worries about.
The reasons you say that are because the question is fundamentally unanswerable, not because there's another way to answer it that doesn't involve unsupportable guessing.
But more importantly, are you sure you want to retreat to the point where the original cause of the universe is the only part of religion that is beyond scientific scrutiny?
Comment by don provan — November 13, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Popper's concepts have had a positive impact on the trend toward ever more sophisticated technology and greater data output.
A strange comment. Might as well have asked what is it about huge increases governmental powers that make it an invalid target for science? Or the forensic trail linked to the Fort Hood incident. Can anyone say terrorism is a valid forensic inference (target)? Why are you targeting religion anyway?
Comment by Bradford — November 13, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I believe John's getting confused by a faulty understanding of Popper. For example, I don't think he understands exactly what you're pointing out here: that Popper's work made science and technology more effective. He keeps talking as if Popper somehow undermines them. So that's why I'm trying to get him off Popper and reflecting directly on the position he's trying to take.
And why wouldn't we ask that? Science can certainly help us understand some aspects of the question, such as those involving specific applications of power. But, on the other hand, we can also easily answer why science is not useful when it comes to judgements of the relative value of personal freedom vs. governmental power.
Again, the question is easily answered: science can tell us a lot of things about what happened at Ford Hood, but it cannot help us define what we mean when we use the term "terrorism".
Like John, you seem to think that just asking this question is a hostile act. Why is that? You act as if I'm asking the question as if you can't answer it.
There's no intent to specifically target religion. We ask scientific questions about most everything else. Why not religion?
Comment by don provan — November 13, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Let's try an experiment. What's the reaction to this?
What is it about Muslims that make them invalid targets?
What is it about gays that make them invalid targets?
What is it about African-Americans that make them invalid targets?
Does anyone think these sentences are evidence of hostility?
Comment by Bradford — November 13, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I certainly don't think they are. But no matter: I'm telling you that my question is not hostile, so we've cleared up that misunderstanding. Now will you answer it?
Comment by don provan — November 13, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Then you are unique. No public persona would dare utter them for fear of being labeled a hate monger.
As far as science "targeting" religion or other areas of interest you need to explain the nature of the proposed experiments.
Comment by Bradford — November 13, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. "What is it about African-Americans that makes them invalid targets for education subsidies?" "What is it about gays that makes them invalid targets for scientific study?" I'm not seeing any hate.
I was commenting on blanket claims that religion is beyond scientific study. I'm looking for the ground rules and wondering how they'll be justified. I am not seeking your permission for any specific study.
Comment by don provan — November 13, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
This is a bait and switch. You originally alluded to scientific studies as targeting religions which still strikes me as disjointed thinking. Now you want to use targeting in a Santa Claus sense of the term. Who would object to getting presents?
Comment by Bradford — November 13, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I'm afraid you just misread me from the beginning, then. That's really been what I've been wondering all along: who wouldn't want to have their beliefs studied in a way that's been highly effective at weeding out errors?
Comment by don provan — November 13, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Dp, why not use this approach to weed out errors in White House and congressional policy making procedures first?
Comment by Bradford — November 13, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Comment by chunkdz — November 13, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
November 13th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
You initially responded to a comment posted about Popper. I thought he had some ideas that are relevant to the discussion. Why is it that you want to suddenly forget about him?
You keep using that quote out of context. Here it is in context:
“There are many ways to present my own non-inductivist point of view. Perhaps the simplest is this. I will try to show that the whole apparatus of induction becomes unnecessary once we admit the general fallibility of human knowledge or, as I like to call it, the conjectural character of human knowledge.
Let me point this out first for the best kind of human knowledge we have; that is, for scientific knowledge. I assert that scientific knowledge is essentially conjectural or hypothetical.”
(Later he writes: )
“What the scientist's and the lunatic's theories have in common is that both belong to conjectural knowledge. But some conjectures are much better than others; and this is a sufficient answer to Russell, and it is sufficient to avoid radical scepticism. For since it is possible for some conjectures to be preferable to others, it is also possible for our conjectural knowledge to improve, and to grow. (Of course, it is possible that a theory that is preferred to another at one time may fall out of favour at a later time so that the other is now preferred to it. But, on the other hand, this may not happen.)”
Popper recognized that all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is fallible. So paradoxically it only becomes the best kind of knowledge when we recognize that it is hypothetical, conjectural and fallible. It sounds to me like you think that it is infallible. Popper never makes that claim.
Furthermore, Popper only applied his falsification methodology to the natural sciences. The social sciences, history, metaphysics, ethics and moral theory etc. require different methodologies.
I never made the claim that Popper undermines science. That is a deliberate and presumptive misrepresentation of what I think, and once again that is a misunderstanding of Popper.
Science is not our only source of knowledge. Why is it necessary science study everything?
I’ll agree science has given us some great technology– some life saving and life changing technology; it has also given us some evil technology. I don’t think that having nuclear weapons that can destroy the earth many times over makes our world a better place to live.
The truth is science already studies religion, just not very effectively. For example, in his book, How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, Michael Shermer discusses on how religious belief evolves. His review of a couple of studies: the search for a “God module” in the brain and another looking for a “God gene“, is critical but cautiously optimistic. Reviewing the same studies in their book, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul, Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'leary debunk these same studies as not telling us very much at all. Who is right and who is wrong here? Shermer is an atheist or hard agnostic; Beauregard and O'leary are both theists. What world view is the more objective one? Shermer, for example, assumes apriori that peoples belief in God is something subjective which only takes place in their head. Beauregard and O'leary, on the other hand, believe that there is a transcendent reality. I would argue that to honestly study religion you also have to also consider the metaphysical issues. How do we do that in an unbiased and objective manner?
By contrast if two chemists are trying to duplicate the same experiment what difference will it make if one believes in God and the other does not?
The scientific study of religion or religious belief, in my opinion, is simply not very promising.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 13, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
November 14th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Well, they do seem a bit hostile toward Don's hostility against religion.
Comment by Mung — November 14, 2009 @ 1:24 am
November 14th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Well, Richard Dawkins seems to think it makes a fine target. So why not tell us how Dawkins approached the study of religion, beginning with how he defined it, and then following that up with how he determined it's effects, explaining along the way his use of the scientific method in doing so.
Then perhaps we can answer your question.
Effective in weeding out errors in what? Metaphysical theories?
Comment by Mung — November 14, 2009 @ 1:30 am
November 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Huh?? If you follow Berlinski, you'll see that he's saying the exact opposite of what you think he's saying. Which suggests that were you actually paying attention, you'd agree with him. Good!
Comment by DL — November 15, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
November 16th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Mung brings up an important point. Can we use science to weed out or establish metaphysical theories? No one believes you can do that except materialists or strong naturalists.
Karl Popper certainly didn’t think that way. In his 1958 essay, “Metaphysics and Criticizability,” he writes “I am first of all an indeterminist, secondly a realist, thirdly a rationalist… I gladly admit– with Kant and other critical rationalists– that we cannot possess anything like full knowledge of the real world with its infinite richness and beauty. Neither physics nor any other science can help us to this end.”
So whatever Popper meant when he wrote, “the best kind of human knowledge we have; that is, for scientific knowledge,” he did not mean that science would, or even could, answer our deepest and most profound philosophical and/or spiritual questions.
He also wrote that there are three types of theory:
“First, logical and mathematical theories.
Second, empirical and scientific theories.
Third, philosophical or metaphysical theories."
He goes on to argue that the first and second type of theories are refutable, the third type, “philosophical or metaphysical theories” are not. Clearly theology and religion fall into this category. Therefore, they cannot be analyzed scientifically.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 16, 2009 @ 12:00 am
November 16th, 2009 at 12:59 am
It's best to not assume that Don is paying attention to what he says, much less what anyone else says. An added benefit of this view is that it provides a constructive framework for interpreting his posts.
We should assume that Don has never actually read Berlinski, nor is he acquainted with the philosophical basis of Berlinki's arguments, and we should therefore lead him by the hand from first principles, all the while assuming he's not actually paying attention to anything we write.
Comment by Mung — November 16, 2009 @ 12:59 am
November 16th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Now, we can perhaps make some judgment about religion and/or metaphysics based upon this knowledge, but should we not first ask the question, upon which metaphysical theory (or theories) is modern science based?
JAD, I'd be interested to hear what Popper had to say (if anything) about the metaphysical basis of science.
Comment by Mung — November 16, 2009 @ 1:06 am
November 17th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Good! So you propose that we not allow science to consider metaphysical theories. That's a good start. How do you suggest we divide up religious beliefs into metaphysical theories and other beliefs? Or do you just want to say that since metaphysical theories are involved in religion, all of religion is all off limits?
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
That's the easy part: science is based on the metaphysical theory "what you see is what you get." Quite trivial, but ever so important, so it's what we use in all areas of our lives except religion. We absolutely demand it when asking safety questions or when deciding who did what to whom in legal proceedings.
So it isn't really the metaphysics of science that's in question: we accept the metaphysics of science unconditionally every day. The issue is the metaphysics of religion, particularly the part that rules out the scientific scrutiny we insist on everywhere else.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
A good start for you too. Empiricism is metaphysical.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
There's much more to it than that.
On the Epistemological Crisis in Genomics by Edward R Dougherty.
How is that? Is conducting experiments a customary part of your life?
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Comment by chunkdz — November 17, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Do you think he sees this as a positive attribute of philosophical or metaphysical theories?
Isn't that because theology and religion are beyond any analysis?
OK, so you've reached about the same place as Mung, the claim basically being that some things about religion cannot be shown to be true. I understand why you want to set those aside, since you already know science would find no evidence for them.
Now I ask you what I asked Mung: does this rule out religious beliefs in general, or can we separate some religious beliefs which could be refuted and, therefore, are open to scientific study? How would you feel about a study that considers whether prayer can have any effects in the physical world beyond the psychological and physiological changes that can be explained without religion? Is that OK? Would you accept the findings if the results were that no broader effects could be detected? Or would you consider that finding hostile towards religion?
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
No. Clearly theology and religion have been the subject of in depth analysis by some heavyweight thinkers throughout history.
This is tard like thinking. Science does not explain origins- an inherently religious topic. It does not explain the origin of the universe, life or consciousness. Checkmate.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Very good point to emphasize: we really do accept science as an institution and the results it delivers, not merely our personal applications of the scientific method. No, I don't test aspirin myself, yet I'm confident it isn't poison.
I don't really see how your quote suggests anything broader as the metaphysical basis. It merely describes how this simplistic metaphysical position is put into practice.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
We don't set metaphysics aside simply because science is impotent.
Comment by chunkdz — November 17, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
It suggests that your "what you see is what you get" summary is a gross oversimplification of science.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Another important point, since it helps us recognize that some metaphysical areas we accept without question in our daily lives.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Empiricism is not universally applauded as a philosophy. Our daily lives are lived more by faith than by experiments.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I wasn't describing science, I was describing science's metaphysical basis. "What you see is what you get" is, of course, a simplification of the metaphysical basis of science, perhaps even a gross oversimplification, but it's suitable for our purposes, I think. After all, as I've suggested a couple of times now, science is a given. The question isn't why we trust science, but rather why we don't trust it in the specific case of religion. The metaphysics of religion are what's important for exploring why it is an exception.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Taxes are a given too. So what?
A good indicator that you do not understand science.
That's not a suitable basis for an experimental program.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Fortunately none of us live our lives according to what's applauded by philosophy. Empicial results what what we all trust first and foremost, except where we're told not to.
Our daily lives are lived by faith that someone else has performed the necessary experiments to insure our cities are safe, our food in plentiful, and our medicine is reliable. Etc.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
This is beyond stupidity. You think the cop on the corner is performing experiments? How about the guy who canned the food in the factory or the technican who filled the prescription? Take your idol to an atheist temple.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Are you suggesting we start taxing religions?
If you have an answer to my question, I'm all ears.
Yeah, Mung and David have both pointed out that there are elements of religion which are not suitably concrete for us to be able to attain the assurances about them that science provides in most aspects of our lives. Now you can answer the question I put to them: does the fact that some elements of religion are not suitably defined to be either proved or refuted mean we should not consider any religious beliefs scientifically?
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Describe the experiment.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Why are you getting angry? It's a simple fact that we have a standard for determining truth that we've found to be reliable and effective, and we use it everywhere except in religion. I don't know why you think observing that cops don't wear lab coats undermines the point. Cops still have specific standards they have to follow to prove something in court.
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
You're either lying or are ignorant. We do not use experimentation to determine truth and if it is a standard that is independent of experiments then you have refuted your own position. We do not use experimental approaches everywhere except for religion. Whoever told you that is a fool.
Legal evidentiary standards. That's not science.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I described one here although, again, I'm really more interested in how one decides what should and shouldn't be fair game. Isn't there any way to describe that in general?
Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
This is not a description of an experiment. Describe your experiment.
Comment by Bradford — November 17, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
DP:
Of course, no one should be surprised if I deny that this is what I said. And far be it from me to expect you to actually understand what I wrote or accurately represent it, since you can't even do that for what you write yourself.
Why should I bother to respond to any question of yours which you put to me, given your past record of forgetting what it was you actually asked, and your proclivity for making up my response for me, regardless of what I actually write?
Comment by Mung — November 17, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
November 17th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
That not what I said. In fact, I'm pretty sure I was making the exact opposite point. Let's use science to consider science.
I have no idea why you think it's a good start. You cannot even provide a rational justification for science, yet you want to use it anyways, and you think that's a good start?
Why don't we first calibrate our equipment? Let's use science itself for the calibration. How do we test the claim, for example, that science can lead us to truth in religion? Is that an empirical claim, or a metaphysical claim?
Only if the same logic applies to science.
Comment by Mung — November 17, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I can play too:
does the fact that some elements of the theory of evolution are not suitably defined to be either proved or refuted mean we should not consider any evolutionary beliefs scientifically?
Comment by ID guy — November 18, 2009 @ 9:12 am
November 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I don't know enough about religion to suggest how to study prayer. That's why I'm asking you about applying science to religion. I don't even know if experimentation would be a useful technique. How would you study the effectiveness of prayer scientifically?
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I interpreted you as answering that science wouldn't apply to metaphysical theories such as religion. You were very oblique, so I filled in the part about why that would be. I guess I was wrong. So why do you think science cannot be applied to metaphysical theories? Just a rule?
I can't? I keep telling you to look around you: our entire society is based on empirical verification.
"Truth" is a metaphysical term. Science tells us what it tells us. I'm not making a claim of value for the results. Nor am I interested in labeling it "truth". I'm just asking why we shouldn't gather the information.
Does the same logic apply to logic?
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Science isn't a metaphysical theory. It's just a technique. It's been studied scientifically to death.
One might use various metaphysical theories to interpret scientific results, but we don't normally worry about that, and I'm not worried about it here.
You act as if you worry that bridges will collapse under you because science isn't reliable.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I think all aspects of the theory of evolution should be studied scientifically. Anything not suitably defined should be better defined or discarded. Anyone suggesting otherwise should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
But can they be?
The whole theory isn't suitably defined.
"A change in allele frequency over time"???????
Comment by ID guy — November 18, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
You act as if science is so reliable that it can keep bridges from collapsing.
Comment by chunkdz — November 18, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Sure.
I guess you should take it up with someone that knows something about evolutionary theory and cares whether it's suitably defined.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I don't know what makes you say that. But I do think bridges built using techniques based on science are significantly safer than bridges built without such standards. Don't you? Everyone else does, including the governments that pay for the bridges and are entrusted to ensure that they're safe.
Comment by don provan — November 18, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Not at all. My concern is that reason and rationality not collapse under my feet. Perhaps science, since it's "just a technique" doesn't give us the answers to life, the universe, and everything. But I'm open to the idea, I just expect you to defend it, is all, since you are the one proposing that it is the case.
Comment by Mung — November 18, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Then you agree that science cannot keep bridges from collapsing? Good. Let's continue.
Huh? There are Roman bridges still in existence which predate science by centuries. Meanwhile, science couldn't stop the Tacoma Narrows Bridge from crashing down. I'll take the unscientific Roman bridge, thank you.
What you perennially fail to grasp, Don, is that science advances through failure. The falsification of a theory is a victory for science. Verification is status quo.
Imagine that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge didn't collapse when it did. America might have built hundreds of similar bridges based on similar designs thinking that "science" had "verified" the stability of that particular design. This faulty thinking might have resulted in the deaths of humans and enourmous monetary losses. All because of your supposed "reliability" and "success" of science.
It is through the failure of bridges that science advances, Don. (Hopefully simulated failures, these days) And the more devastating and humiliating the failure, the greater the victory for science. This is as it was intended. But I feel more safe walking across the Roman Bridge than I do the Bay Bridge. Jeez, didn't they just have a couple of huge chunks of steel fall off of it? Science didn't predict that, did it? Yet, those falling chunks of steel represent another huge advance for science because we will learn a new threshold of failure.
Embrace falsification, Don. It will free you from your metaphysical shackles.
Comment by chunkdz — November 18, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
That's a false statement don. Do you trust science in every case except that of religion? If so, then let's examine (as chunkdz has already pointed out) all of the trusted scientific theories that turned out to be bunk. Then let's postulate how many of today's trusted theories will ultimately turn out to be bunk. Then let's examine your head for trusting such an unreliable method.
Wrong. The track record of science suggests that it is severely limited in its ability to determine the truth.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 18, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
November 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
For the most part, the people who not only want to, but do, study religion “scientifically” begin with the assumption that religion can be, if not indeed must be, reduced to something that can be studied scientifically. In other words, if you want study religion scientifically it must be forced into a metaphysical frame work that is naturalistic or non-theistic.
But how do we know that naturalism is true? Can it be proven scientifically? Is it self evident? Or, is it “true” like other religions because it is something that is believed to be true?
But unfortunately this all begs the question, especially if we ask whether there is a reality to the truth claims of a particular religious belief.
Once again I return to the example I gave above about two chemists, one an atheist the other a theist. If both perform the same basic experiment they will both end up with the same result. Chemistry is indifferent to their beliefs. It can be studied objectively by both the atheist and the theist.
What is the metaphysical framework that is going to allow us to study religion objectively? I can’t think of one, but maybe someone else can.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 18, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Good idea. And, of course, we also need to consider the trusted non-scientific theories that turned out to be bunk. Which are there more of? Which ones do we now understand are bunk because of later scientific research? Which ones do we now understand are bunk because of later non-scientific activities?
Compared to what?
Comment by don provan — November 19, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Are you suggesting that Roman bridge were built using religious knowledge?
Would the input of religion have kept the Tacoma Narrows Bridge up?
The Roman bridge was built based on extensive experience about what keeps bridges from falling. This class of knowledge reaches its pinnacle today in what we call "science". Apparently you have other reasons to doubt modern science, but your observations about Roman bridges are bang on. Roman bridges were solid because they were designed by people that knew what made bridges strong through direct experience, not through unsupportable theories.
Exactly what I've been talking about. Why isn't failure or verification applied to religious beliefs? Behind these public failures in engineering you're talking about is a methodical program of falsification operating at every level of scientific research. Why do we not apply the same approach to religion? Religion has had some colossal failures, too. Could a scientific approach to religion have prevented Jonestown?
Comment by don provan — November 19, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Is that what you think I'm saying?
This is a pathetic attempt at obfuscation even for you, Provan.
No, Romans knew nothing of science though they did have knowledge. But then again my dog has knowledge so I guess by your standard he is a scientist. (He is awfully smart.)
Shoot, Don, I could build a bridge that is safer and more durable than the most sciencey bridge you could imagine. I'd make it out of solid granite 50 yards wide and 100 yards deep into the earth with solid granite guardrails 20 feet thick. It would last for millenia, nobody would ever fall off of it, nobody would fear it's collapse and not a smidge of science behind it. Just chunkdz, a few thousand buddies, some sandwiches, and lots of rocks.
My science-free bridge would be the bridge of choice for all commuters from miles around. My science-free bridge would be the envy of bridge makers far and wide. Those sciencey bridges, after all, keep falling apart. Science apparently makes bridges more dangerous.
Comment by chunkdz — November 19, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Jim Jones was an atheist. Are you suggesting that science could have kept him from his destructive atheist beliefs?
Comment by chunkdz — November 19, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
You'll have to explain what a "religious belief" is, and, for example, what a "scientifi belief" is, and how to tell the two apart.
Is the belief that "verification" can be applied to "religious beliefs" a "scientific belief," a "religious belief," or some other kind of belief?
Can a "religious belief" actually motivate science, and if so, at what point does it cease to become one sort of belief and change into another sort of belief?
Are you a believer in the "fixity of beliefs," or are you a believer in the "transmutation of beliefs"?
Are "scientific beliefs" more favorable for our survival as a species than "religious beliefs"?
At some point, weren't religious beliefs mroe favorable, else how do you explain them?
Now is there any correlation between the truth of those "religious beliefs" and our survival?
If not, why should we believe there is any correlation between "scientific beliefs" and truth?
And if there is no correlation, why shoudl we care what "sceince" has to say about "religious beliefs"?
Comment by Mung — November 19, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Of course it doesn't. Neither does mathematics. Do I really need to defend that?
Comment by don provan — November 19, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
That's what I'm asking. If no one can explain how religious beliefs are different than any other source of information, then the obvious conclusion is that we should subject them to the same analysis that we use for everything else.
Now you're just getting silly. What difference does it make? "Show me" is a basic form of verification that's used at every level of our lives. It really doesn't matter what label you decide to use: it remains fundamentally important to us.
Who said there was? All I've pointed out is that scientific analysis provides useful information. Is drug safety "truth"?
Comment by don provan — November 19, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
The people following Jim Jones were religious.
Comment by don provan — November 19, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
ok, so now how do you know that "show me" isn't a religious belief?
I mean, I can certainly find examples in the Bible of "show me" that have nothing to do with science.
You're the one doing the labelling Don, lol.
Here you are splitting up "knowledge" and labelling it ("scientific knowledge"):
And here you are splitting up "truth" and labelling it ("scientifically reliable truth"):
And here you are splitting up "statements" and labelling them ("scientific statement"):
And here you are splitting up "results" and labelling them ("scientific results"):
I am sure I coudl go on and on. Can you say scientism? Now there's a label for you.
Comment by Mung — November 19, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Yes, like Jones, they were religious atheists.
Again, are you saying that you think science could have kept these people from their destructive atheist beliefs?
Comment by chunkdz — November 19, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
So true, Provan. So true. In fact, science tells me that it is more efficient to pee on the floor than to go down the hall to the bathroom. I tested the hypothesis, replicated it over and over, and I've got to say science was right. It is very efficient.
My co-workers keep saying that there are other sources of information that are more important than science and that I should pay attention to them rather than blindly and dogmatically trusting in science. I think they're just jealous because thanks to science I get much more work done than they do.
Comment by chunkdz — November 19, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Don is confusing falsification with verification. They are mutually exclusive.
The following paragraph describes Popper’s view:
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 19, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
No one suggested you just pee your pants? You can just wear them home and wash them, and save someone the work of peeing on the floor. The warm feeling you get is also conducive to feelings of increased well-being, which also improves work output.
Comment by Mung — November 19, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
November 19th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
As soon as I get my research grant approved!
Comment by chunkdz — November 19, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Boy. It sure would help if everyone weren't misusing the terms "religion", "faith", and even "science".
Comment by DL — November 20, 2009 @ 2:22 am
November 20th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
It's worse than that. He and Zach prefer a logical positivist approach for their most cherished hypotheses, but demand rigorous falsifiability for views with which they disagree.
The first casualty of culture war is critical thinking.
Comment by chunkdz — November 20, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
chunkdz:
That may be the first causualty but there are others. What we witness is an insistence on one particular POV. You can see through the disguise of it being about science. Tread away from scientific data just a bit and you find a no compromise approach on most all the major issues of the day which includes those impacting our lives. If critical thinking is the first casualty, freedom is not far behind.
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
What are you suggesting? That Zach and Don are postmodernists?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 20, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
It's all just authoritarianism in various guises, isn't it? Freedom is intolerable to an authoritarian.
Comment by chunkdz — November 20, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I agree but what then is the attraction of authoritarian thinking unless you are the one making the rules? Why give up freedom only to become a minion for authoritarian makers and shakers?
Comment by Bradford — November 20, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Postcritalthinkists maybe.
Comment by chunkdz — November 20, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
The illusion of freedom can be very alluring after the seeds of discontent have been sown.
And the next step…
Comment by chunkdz — November 20, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
And finally…
Comment by chunkdz — November 20, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I think they are modernists who are just trying to find their place in the Brave New World where positivism and empiricism are no longer uncritically accepted and claims to "scientific truth" coming from people who claim "science isn't about truth" are seen for what they really are.
Comment by Mung — November 20, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
It's the same standard. Scientific claims are subject to scientific validation. Nor am I a philosophical positivist. And while falsifiability is an important heuristic, it is not the philosopher's stone. All observations, including potential falsifications, can be subject to theoretical complexities.
Comment by Zachriel — November 20, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
November 20th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
American? Holding people without due process, torturing them; paranoid to the point of attacking countries that pose no threat, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties and millions of refuges; prominent members of the government belittling other nations even as they fight and die alongside American soldiers; then the debacles of cronyism and economic collapse. Your frustration with the authoritarian impulse is evident, but the U.S. may be pulling back from the abyss.
Comment by Zachriel — November 20, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
November 21st, 2009 at 12:30 am
Zachriel:
Speaking of which why doesn't this administration encourage filmed inspections of Guantanamo? That terrorist did a pretty good job of torturing GIs at the army base did he not? A few bullet riddled bodies here and a few dead soldiers there. The victims did not get the drowning sensation though, only some internal organ destruction, massive bleeding, concussions and death. I'm sure extreme leftists would not consider any of that torture. It's a fantasy world they inhabit.
While the war in Afghanistan rages bigger than ever. Can the savior make a decision on troop levels? He's only had 10 months in office. How many more does he need? Time to poop or get off the pot.
You're referring to Obama's decision to remove the defensive missiles from Poland on September 17th? Is this administration dumb or just insensitive. That's Poland's equivalent of Dec. 7th. In their case Stalin invaded the country on that date and despite flagging by the State Department Obama chose that date to deliver what to Poles was bad news. Some salt in the wound but why? To butter up the big boys to the east?
Please. Stop funding organized crime. ACORN is a disgrace.
Tell that to the tens of millions unemployed. Tell that to business owners facing the worse economic times in their lives. It's time to man up and let the buck stop with Obama. If you keep whining about Bush you'll get slaughtered in 2010. Keep whining.
Comment by Bradford — November 21, 2009 @ 12:30 am
November 21st, 2009 at 5:54 am
If it's my seed, Darwin be praised!
Comment by Mung — November 21, 2009 @ 5:54 am
November 21st, 2009 at 8:58 am
So you set your country's standards by the worst criminal behavior.
Comment by Zachriel — November 21, 2009 @ 8:58 am
November 21st, 2009 at 10:59 am
I'm applying the standards the left imposed to judge their performance. If the temporary sensation of drowning is torture then how much more tortuous are severe wounds, permanent disfigurations and death resulting from a terrorist spree on a military base under the watch of the current commander-in-chief? This is criminal negligence at best on the part of those currently in charge.
Comment by Bradford — November 21, 2009 @ 10:59 am
November 21st, 2009 at 11:21 am
The killings at Fort Hood were a criminal act. Torturing prisoners is a criminal act. The former will undoubtedly be prosecuted as a crime. And the latter crime?
Comment by Zachriel — November 21, 2009 @ 11:21 am
November 21st, 2009 at 11:24 am
We'll see. Holder has access to all the evidence and he has the legal expertise and authority as well. If no prosecution is forthcoming you can hardly blame Bush for it although you surely would like to.
Comment by Bradford — November 21, 2009 @ 11:24 am
November 21st, 2009 at 11:40 am
If the U.S. tortured, which it quite clearly did, then people in the Bush Adminstration committed crimes. (And the torture regime entailed far more than waterboarding.) If the Obama Adminstration is aware of such crimes and fails to investigate and prosecute the criminals, then they too are guilty of criminal behavior. It is required under U.S. law and binding international treaty that such crimes be prosecuted. Or do you think the solemn promises of the U.S. are meaningless?
The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.
We can always count on the great nation of Lithuania to seek the truth.
Comment by Zachriel — November 21, 2009 @ 11:40 am
November 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
I do not have tunnel vision on solemn promises which is why so much of the leftist mantra can be seen for what it is- hypocrisy. There is excellent evidence that ACORN is a criminal enterprise. Numerous undercover stings have documented the willingness of many local chapters to facilitate the most heinous of crimes. Where are the prosecutions? That's not difficult to figure out. ACORN is viewed as an organization valued for its ability to put some left of center candidates over the top. Why prosecute such a valuable political ally.
It's even worse. The mainstream media has become a mouthpiece for one political ideology. There is not even a pretense of objectivity. Where are the Walter Cronkites? He managed to conceal his own views for many years with his professional manner. These days you can tell what the prejudices of anchors are. They telegraph their punches. The reason Fox news kills competitors in the ratings is that it is the only network willing to report some news deemed politically incorrect. That's a mark of shame for its competition.
Comment by Bradford — November 21, 2009 @ 11:46 am
November 21st, 2009 at 11:57 am
You're comparing that to state-sanctioned torture of prisoners, black prisons, and paranoid invasions of other countries. You brought up authoritarian thinking, yet you ignore actual authoritarian acts. If ACORN broke the law, they should be prosecuted. Now what about state-sanctioned torture? Or do you really consider that on a par with "someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes?"
Comment by Zachriel — November 21, 2009 @ 11:57 am
November 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
ACORN was sanctioned with funds sourced from the federal treasury. Torture is a loaded word. It applies to soldiers who were tortured as a consequence of neglect from higher ups. There was ample evidence that the murderer was a danger to his fellow soldiers. The evidence was not acted on. Torture ensued.
Comment by Bradford — November 21, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
November 21st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I would have voted for the Franken Amendment but would hope that claims includes redress for certain wrongs not specifically alluded to.
Comment by Bradford — November 21, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
November 21st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
People should be held accountable when appropriate.
If they committed crimes, they should be prosecuted. Now what about those in the Bush Administration who directed the torture of prisoners?
Comment by Zachriel — November 21, 2009 @ 3:51 pm