| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
5 beliefs? 1. Universal laws. 2. human observation reliable. 3. human reasoning valid. 4. objective reality. 5. time & objective reality past. I'd say 1, 4 & 5 are basic assumptions, although the time part is in some detail arguable, theoretically. ( those lazy writer multiverse & time travel plots ) Assumptions, so, sure, a matter of faith. Or Rational choice. as in "This is a working system so I will use it until it shows it is wrong" 2, I have my doubts that it is. In social sciences, even eye witness accounts of stressful situations, then human observation is often wrong. There's some interesting research into random number generators, and the observation that putting a human in the loop, even tenuously, can influence the randomness. Feel free to assume psychic ( as yet not understood science ) or magic ( ditto ) Murphy's Law, etc. I just leave it at "that figures". 3 seems off, somehow. It's certainly an assumption, but there are multiple forms and levels of human reasoning, and Not all are useful in science. Or at least need to be cross checked by a different systems. Of course, I could be wrong. Even Universal Laws is doubtful for varying values of Universal. There's a reason you lay out the assumptions first. As in "in the temperature range and atmospheric conditions of room temperature, at sea level, ( in a one G field, on the surface of Earth, hyperspacial stress under 8 cochranes, in a magnetic field under 1 gauss, etc etc. ) then X" | ||
| Blake |
To clarify, it's specifically the laws of logic, like the law of non-contradiction that are assumed as constant and universal. Essentially that we don't live in a Wonderland universe, but one that is rationally logically understandable. In the context of the assumptions of science, reliable powers of observation means that the deliberate recording of highly focused intentional observations are plausibly accurate. It's not that casual human observations are infallible, just that they are plausibly accurate in the deliberate focused discerning of things like reading a temperature, or measuring a beak, weighing something, recording a time interval, noting that a solid turned to liquid, liquid to vapor, etc. It's much the same concerning the validity of human reasoning in the context of science. It's not that all human thinking is valid, gah! We know that is false! It's that we are capable of intentional valid logical reasoning, of objectively true deductive argumentation. Every scientific conclusion assumes all the above and would be either meaningless or impossible absent any of those basic assumptions. The popular response is along the lines of "but I don't need to assume that my reasoning is valid; I can look at the reasoning of others such that if a lot of others reach the same conclusion as me, then I can feel secure that it is well reasoned. It's a viciously circular argument, for one must use one's own reasoning and assume it valid in order to discern the reasoning of others. | ||
| Aesquire |
you mean the number of people that agree with me is no measure to how right I am?  I'm cynical as can be, but I'm not as pessimistic about Science as a way to tell us how the Universe works as Sami seems to be. I'm fully aware of the religification of science, the Sovietization, the Dogma, the corruption, but one bad barrel of apples doesn't mean the orchard is bad. That's all Human corruption of the concept. I even started a thread to complain about the corruption and political forces that pervert science to use it to take your money and take power. And now that both AOC's former Owner, the author of the Greeen Neew Deeal, AND the head of the UN IPCC have both publicly stated that Global Warming is a political movement to change the economic system from Capitalism ( and republics ) to Communism/Socialism ( and authoritarian dictatorship ) at last, The Lie is Settled, although the Leftist liars will keep pushing it until they are dead. Me, I no longer care about offending people on the subject. Both the Global Warming Con, and the hype on CCP-coronavirus, are harmful in that the Boy Who Cried Wolf problem is growing. If, tomorrow, another Chinese created Plague starts sweeping the planet, ( and you can make money on betting it will inside of a year ) and the Next One has a mortality rate of, say, 30%, are you going to believe the Disney Corporation ( ABC ) when they tell you it's a world shaking crisis? If Skywatch ( the non profit group that tracks potential Earth striking objects in space ) leaks that a comet will strike Rochester NY, will they evacuate? That ignores that in the real world, they simply can't. Even more disturbing, in the political corruption of, and mythological perception of, science are the Earthquake specialists in Italy that were prosecuted and sent to prison for not having imagined Godlike Powers to predict earthquakes. That's full on Heinlein Crazy Years stuff. | ||
| Blake |
I think Sami isn't dismissing scientific inquiry in general, just the wholesale corruption of it. RE his opening posts here. Dark Matter? Oh, it's science they say! They cannot see it, but they say it must exist or else their entire world view must be false. Sounds like Dark Matter of the gaps to me. It's that anti-scientific thinking that bothers many. One issue is the corruption of science, whether out of incompetence (just plain bad science), or for political or personal reasons or what have you; there are so many. Who wants to work themselves out of a great paying job? Who wants to publish a paper about evidence that fails to confirm their theory? Who wants to subject themselves to the pack of rabid believers and publish science that contradicts the desired (they call it "consensus" narrative? Another issue is the deification and distortion of SCIENCE as if SCIENCE is some kind of holy arbiter of reason and truth. Science addresses the material nature of what is. Nothing more. It says zero about the really big questions, like the meaning and purpose of life, morality/ethics, beauty/aesthetics, value, or anything metaphysical. The point of noting the multiple philosophical assumptions that are all fundamental to the value and possibility of even doing science, is that none of them are scientific. They are philosophical assumptions. So we have the case where the tool that we use to understand the material world is itself entirely dependent upon immaterial philosophical assumptions for its very existence. This causes great distress among those who deify SCIENCE. Maybe that is analogous to the full state of reality in general. Elevating the material above all else versus also or even more so valuing that which materialism cannot address. Materialists think not. But given materialism, they cannot freely think. Hahah on them. (Message edited by blake on April 29, 2020) | ||
| Blake |
Sami: That "get your own dirt" joke is one of my dad's favorites. He's 84, and just got a new aortic heart valve of the bovine variety. He didn't know if it was a cow's or a bull's though. Would be fun to know either way. He was scheduled just the week before, then in on Wednesday morning, back home Thursday afternoon. Just a little hospital in Longview, Texas. The East Texas oilfield garners more than the typical share of top medical practitioners. Amazing. It's made a significant improvement to his quality of life. This past Saturday we were in his back yard pulling out stumps. He'd done most of the work already with axe and shovel. I just showed up with the 4 wheel drive diesel pickup truck and a hefty chain. Life is good. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick: What Bill Craig has stated on the subject is a little different than my comments, but similar:
The series of discussions/debates between Craig and Kraus from which the above was drawn are illuminating. Craig showed near infinite tolerance. The videos and transcripts... Life, the Universe and Nothing (I): Has science buried God? William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss Brisbane, Australia - August 7, 2013 Videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b8t70_c8eE and https://vimeo.com/73280102 Transcript: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/life-the-universe-a nd-nothing-has-science-buried-god Life, the Universe, and Nothing (II): Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss Sydney, Australia - August 13, 2013 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82uGzgoajI Transcript: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/life -the-universe-and-nothing-ii-why-is-there-somethin g-rather-than-nothing/ Life, the Universe and Nothing (III): Is it reasonable to believe there is a God? William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss Melbourne, Australia - August 16, 2013 Videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xcgjtps5ks and https://vimeo.com/73280102 Transcript: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/life -the-universe-and-nothing-iii-is-it-reasonable-to- believe-there-is-a-go/ (Message edited by blake on April 29, 2020) | ||
| 86129squids |
Good to hear about your Dad. Back to science. Of course I'll be pilloried (Hillarie'd? See what I did there?) simply for my source. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/ 23/841729646/virus-researchers-cast-doubt-on-theor y-of-coronavirus-lab-accident And, THIS week. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/ 29/847948272/why-the-u-s-government-stopped-fundin g-a-research-project-on-bats-and-coronaviru Pardon any sarcasm here. | ||
| Aesquire |
Those same analyses refuted an earlier theory that the virus was genetically engineered in a laboratory. Garry says the reason is simple — the virus infects people in a way that scientists had never seen before: "The virus is just really too good at what it's doing," he says. "No human using a computer could do this. This is very clearly a natural process that occurred." From the first link above. So it was a deliberate release? What I'm reading, from a highly suspect source, ( that nonetheless does a consistently pretty good job of in depth actual REPORTING! When they aren't pushing a Stalinist agenda. ) is that the lab definitely has the exact bat viruses we are concerned about today. Never mind earlier reports of poor lab practices and workers selling "used" lab animals to the local bloody wet market because they are underpaid. Let's just assume Bloomberg news is a propaganda tool for a filthy rich monster, and that's all a lie. ( at least part of that last sentence is pretty certain ) So, biowar against, initially, protesters. Or even if not from the lab, the response and choices made by the brutal, murderous, dishonest, oppressive, racist, religious cult regime of God King Xi, indicates a willingness to wage biowar, with natural waves of bad hygiene market plagues supplying the diseases. And since it's... A. Pro communist dictatorship. & B. NPR, ( redundant ) & C. Anti Trump I can't put a lot of Faith in the conclusions. As to being a bioengineering product, if it was a super wheat from Monsanto, I'd expect them to sign their work, and right down to the molecular level. They do that. It makes it easier to sue if they think you are growing their hybrids without paying them. But a bioweapons product? Those people put a great effort into trying to prevent a recognizable signature. If it looks natural, they win. I'm not saying NPR is lying, here, I just have zero reason to think they are telling the truth. Wolf! Wolf! | ||
| H0gwash |
Blake: I see the physical sciences much like you see God, ultimately unknowable and omnipresent, it exists outside and above human logic, observation, reasoning, values, and metrics. So yes, IMHO science does exist even if there was no objective human truth. Faith is a strange and wonderful quirk, it is the impetus that drives us down our various paths. Perhaps they will converge? We cannot yet tell how. Maybe every new scientific discovery gets us a little closer. When artists, manufacturers and capitalists interpret these new discoveries they let us discover a new part of ourselves, as if we now see more deeply into our souls. | ||
| H0gwash |
Squidly- Diversity of life is a very special thing until one of *them* starts taking over the world. The whole "Search for Wuhan" thing is just a red herring; it's not about finding the smoking gun, because even if you did find it, it changes nothing, but it temporarily deflects political pressure. Just like the cat, the virus is out of the bag. If the red herring were true, it would make sense to close the lab. IMHO that is nonsensical because what better place to have a leaky lab than *in another country?* I suppose we could always just ask "Hey buddy ol red commie comrade, any new killer viruses coming our way that we should know about?" | ||
| 86129squids |
Patrick. Sell me your Truth. I recognize several brands you seem to prefer.. I don't know who's Truth is the latest, purest, most salient, most Logical. Guess I'll re-animate Leonard Nimoy to help things. Never have bought a damn thing Limbaugh has sold, nor Breitfart, nor Bannon. GIVE ME SOMETHING BETTER. We have left, and right, of a road. Deal's Gap, maybe the Cherohala. Who's steering? | ||
| 86129squids |
Hogs- I appreciate several things there. The commie/anti-USA/pro CCP/pro former USSR pieces from the National Public Radio organization that I posted are worth VETTING. Maybe I'm just a moron for simply taking them for face value. I read them twice. | ||
| Aesquire |
Patrick. Sell me your Truth. Ok, Science depends on the idea of objective reality. Feelings don't count, just does it work? If you mean politically? I'm mixed, depending on the subject. I tend Jacksonian on foreign policy, the principle that if you are going to war, have a clear goal, and apply enough force that it's quick and decisive. Yes, that can cause excess civilian casualties, but experience shows that a long, drawn out conflict almost always causes more. If you don't have a clear goal, if you don't have a plan to leave, and if you aren't willing to fight to win, do not go to war. The history of the Man, Jackson, is horrible and brutal, even for his time he was a nasty customer. Not the biggest fan. I tend Jeffersonian on other matters, and Hamiltonian on a few. But all the theoretical preferences are subject to change if I find I'm wrong. I'm Libertarian, olde school Liberal, on personal choice and freedom. I'm not a big fan of the Party, as I consider them unrealistic, but I do appreciate the ideas. I'm absolutely an unrepentant counter revolutionary. Evil, proven time and again, by blood in quantities that make the season end of Spartacus Blood and Sand look like a sterile operating room. No matter the good intentions of the fools that want to rule by Marxist principles, the fact is that as soon as they gain power, they get their throats slit in the night by evil men. ( or shot in the back of the head, or publicly executed for crimes against the Holy State ) That Marxism is one of two major religions on the planet that embraces the concept of lies as GOOD if they win, also figures into my feelings on the subject. Also, I once swore an oath, and I take that stuff seriously. If there is anything diametrically opposed to limited constitutional government, it's unlimited authoritarian rule by terror. I pick and chose my views on other subjects as they come up. I do have my opinions on Limbaugh. He's an entertainer, and as such I take him with the seriousness I give Matt Damon. Even the areas where he agrees with me, he probably got there by a path I did not. Global Warming, for example, he holds the view ( or says he does ) that Man just can't affect the climate of the planet. I disagree. His scientific knowledge is very limited, and half wrong. I used to listen as he was the only thing on AM radio I could get at work, and he used to be funny. I don't know why he gave up the comedy? Bill Clinton? Can you think of a funnier joke? He's been so boring and one note for years, you can basically write his show just by watching the morning news and repeating his dozen lines. I haven't listened this century for more than a few minutes Breitfart? Massively biased. But open about it, so you just read & chose. Unlike many other news sellers who are dishonest about bias. You do get stuff that Disney won't tell you. Some of it's true. NPR I treat the same way. Bannon? Don't have an opinion, or any real memory of his stuff. And while we're at it, Drudge has become boring and seems to have shifting bias. Left & right? I don't see any Right in the U.S. other than tiny fringe groups. I don't see any danger of Jeb Bush making us a Christian Dictatorship. And if he tried... there's that oath, and every member of the armed & federal services took it. Just isn't going to happen. Trump, the game show host, hasn't arrested or threatened any reporters, although Barry Did. Donald did call them lying scum to their faces, which is Truth To Power. but the Left? evil, dishonest, morally empty. Middle is fine, but be aware that in left hand curves, if you hug the center line, on a motorcycle, your head is over the line at the right height to hit a semi fender. Ditto right hand curves, edge of road, road signs. ( in right side Drive countries ) Riding in the oil smear isn't wise either. Take that as analogy, and real world riding tips. | ||
| Aesquire |
Albert Einstein Explaining E=mc˛ https://9gag.com/gag/aVwzqpK | ||
| Sami |
Blake, best wishes to your dad. And you're right that I'm not dismissing scientific inquiry in general, hopefully the opening post made that clear. Just as I wouldn't dismiss politics, or religion or philosophy, or medicine, or whatever. But at the same time, there is notable corruption in science, in politics, in religion, in medicine, etc. I think we can and should mention corruption in these fields without being called ''anti-science, anti-politics, anti-religion, anti-medicine, etc.''. Any endeavour by man is susceptible to corruption, and science is no exception. Many materialist atheists put science on a pedestal and basically worship it as an idol, so if we come along and criticise the corruption in science they start to slash out defensively in response to people pointing out the obvious that the emperor has no clothes. Patrick: ''I'm cynical as can be, but I'm not as pessimistic about Science as a way to tell us how the Universe works as Sami seems to be.'' I'm not pessimistic about what science can tell us, but about what science cannot tell us. Certainly, science (scientists) can tell us some things, but they can't tell us every thing. Often, materialistic atheists believe that science, at least in principle, can tell us every thing. These people treat science as an idol, light a candle to it and hope it will answer their questions and prayers about life and living. Such people are in need of a wake up call, because science cannot tell us the questions about life and living, it cannot even tell us the answers to the questions that a three-year old girl may have. Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity that makes the same point: “Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind--this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?” (Message edited by Sami on April 30, 2020) | ||
| Blake |
Gerard: Isn't God knowable in as much as God reveals to us, and we then accept? I remember when I was a teenager, my dad did his best to reveal to me the good and proper character of a man. It wasn't his fault that I might not have noticed, or even rejected what he revealed to me. My failure or rejection didn't make him not my dad. The very word "conscience" from the latin "con" meaning "with, and "science" meaning "knowledge" testifies to an inherent knowledge. The fields of science are neither persons nor things, but processes and the knowledge acquired from them, yeah? They're just studied categories of change in the material world that are discoverable and understandable at least partly to us finite fallible humans. If the laws of logic are from humans, then before humans the laws of logic were violable? Are the laws of logic created by or discovered by humans? "Objective human truth"? Does objective truth have a qualifier? It's either objectively true or not, isn't it, whether we're here or not, yes? "Science does exist even if there was no objective Gerard, is it objectively true that science would exist even if there was no objective truth? That's self-refuting isn't it? For if there was no objective truth, then it wouldn't be true. If for example a beaker of water can simultaneously be solid ice, ice water, boiling, not boiling, and pure vapor depending upon the observer, then empirical investigation would be impossible. Or if a beaker can simultaneously be full of pure water and pure lead... | ||
| Court |
I still like my old example. . . . .kid told me that he’d never believe in anything that could not be seen. I gave him 2 butter knives and seated him in front of an electrical wall outlet. Now .....a true and vocal believer in electricity.. | ||
| Blake |
Gerard: New post re your take on faith: >>> Faith is a strange and wonderful quirk, it is the impetus that drives us down our various paths. Perhaps they will converge? We cannot yet tell how. Maybe every new scientific discovery gets us a little closer. When artists, manufacturers and capitalists interpret these new discoveries they let us discover a new part of ourselves, as if we now see more deeply into our souls. That is the story of the fall of man isn't it? When we became convinced that we might know all and do as we ourselves saw fit, then paradise was lost. Whether you take that literally or figuratively, the history was written long ago that we've already been there done that, and what we found and still find was/is a lot of darkness that we hadn't counted on. Faith is the trust we have in something or someone based upon good evidence that it or they are trustworthy. We have faith in the bridge, the surgeon, the elevator, the pharmacist, the builder, the pilot, the aircraft, the teacher, the motorcycle, the circuit breakers, the water utility, our spouse, etc, etc. I didn't list "spouse" last on purpose. I think that as the popular conception of science at large goes, as a "faith", the emperor has no clothes. That may be due to politics, or popularity, enthusiasm and appreciation, or maybe due to propaganda-like mass distortion from all the essentially public relations managers for it, maybe a combination of those factors. If you asked engineers and science professionals who create and work with physics-based computer/math models, "are you doing science" or "are your models valid science", I've no doubt that most would answer in the affirmative. But if they don't test their models vs reality, then they aren't doing science. They're just creating theory. And theory absent testing to falsify or confirm it is never science. It's just someone's idea of how something may behave. | ||
| H0gwash |
If you look at how animals devise and use tools in wild environments, their logical systems, the reliability of their observations, their notions of objective truth and their notions of time are unknown, and yet it appears they are using science. EDIT: that is why I think of science as phenomena that exists independent of humans. Of course humans (and non humans) quantify it in useful ways with language and logical rules and it is certainly fair to characterize it they way you do. I just don't see that as its ultimate existence. For example, it was once thought an objective truth that the sun revolved around the earth, it was plainly visible rising and setting every day. (Message edited by h0gwash on April 30, 2020) (Message edited by h0gwash on April 30, 2020) | ||
| Blake |
Court, I've appreciated that illustration, but also wondered what kind of skinny old worn-out butter knives you must have. | ||
| H0gwash |
That is the story of the fall of man isn't it? IMHO that is literature, a beautiful and useful story. My perspective is somewhat uglier, that man was never on a pedestal to fall off of, rather, our ancestors crawled out of the ocean with 4 legs and a tail, rather short and "un-fall-able", or "less-fall-able", anyways. I think that as the popular conception of religion at large goes, as a "faith", the emperor has no clothes. I've stolen your words here because I think the symmetry is valid. I suppose unshakeable faith necessarily minimizes internal criticism and exaggerates external criticisms. I agree with you entirely about the value of science being primarily in reproduceability of outcome. | ||
| Court |
Hahahahaha. . . . The new place we just built has the current “code compliant” duplex receptacles .... you cant even put an electrical plug in them with all the safety stuff. You’d be proud of me. . . . 2 - 42 circuit full WiFi breakers panels ... all quads and 48 outlets on 6 isolated circuits in my office. I grew tired of powerstrips.. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/30/there-is- no-such-thing-as-the-science/ | ||
| Blake |
Gerard, How is your perspective uglier re the figurative interpretation? Do you figure that animals are moral agents, knowing good and evil? We like to pretend so on occasion; it makes for good entertainment, but its not true, is it? Animals are just animals. They don't have moral obligations or prohibitions. In the way then, the story holds. "Adam and Eve" would just have emerged from that blissful morally ignorant state into a morally aware state with knowledge of good and evil. It would be beyond incredible for a dozen men to dedicate their lives to something they knew was an emperor with no clothes, especially one who was anathema to their own religion, and for multiple authors to write the story of said emperor.. I don't know what the popular conception of religion is. I know who Christ, the historical person is. If you think biblical history is like an emperor with no clothes, maybe you should look again at the basis for the philosophical foundation of science. The basis for both is the same. So you were correct, the two do converge. Everything converges to the one necessary first cause. | ||
| Blake |
No power strips? That is impressive. Our home was built in the 60's, and it still has mostly the original wiring. The stuff is built like a tank. I don't know why people are compelled to replace it with the cheap new stuff. But more outlets would be nice! | ||
| Aesquire |
HOgwash, where Blake and I seem to differ is the need for a specific, story about a singular God and the entire mythos surrounding his Son, to think objective reality and the scientific method is valid. Yes, you need to Assume objective reality, but God, Athena, or Cthulu aren't necessary to do that. A cynical pagan like me can make a theory, test it, and learn just as well as a devout monk, of ANY faith. Christian, Shinto, no matter. And just because the Establishment of "higher education" is corrupt, dogmatic, and rejects truth in favor of cults, doesn't mean the proven Method is wrong. But it's also true that "Science can't disprove God". It's the wrong tool for the job. Dispel wrong ideas on how the world works, yes, sometimes. I've heard or read quite a bit about atheism. I could parrot the tropes, and twist the arguments, but that would be dishonest. There's a lot of poisonous ammo to shoot fish in the barrel. But I also tried to learn about other faiths. The major Eastern ones and Western. I chose mine, am content, and secure in the morality. I don't proselytize. Happy to answer the few questions I can, & point to sources, but hey! Your soul, your choice. I make no claims of exclusivity of salvation. That may be a simple rejection of my short & limited exposure to Jesuit logic chopping, but I'm not hyper about it. Since part of My Faith is to battle the tendency for humans to lie, I often find myself defending other faiths. Funny, huh? | ||
| H0gwash |
My perspective is uglier because it is not human centric, it does not gaze back at us with our own face. There is a pantheon of religions, with each exclaiming each other's god wears no clothes, that is not incredible. I agree it is necessary to translate hard science into applicable engineering and medicine, etc, it is unfortunate however that the very interpretation IS where the corruption begins. Communication is simultaneously meaning and deceit. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick: >>> HOgwash, where Blake and I seem to differ is the need for a specific, story about a singular God and the entire mythos surrounding his Son, to think objective reality and the scientific method is valid. That is mistaken. Philosophically speaking the supreme being is all that is needed to support the existence of objective reality, or objective truth. Which understanding of that supreme being is accurate, if any, is another question separate from the founding basis required for objective truth. Any eternal, unchanging, omnicient being will do. | ||
| Blake |
Gerard: I think you're getting subjective about humanity and assuming much. The first morally accountable creatures were human. I hear that statement about all the religions being contradictory as if it carries some weight in questioning the truth of any one religious world view. There's two problems with that. First, it's a logical fallacy that because there are a bunch of wrong answers, none of them are the truth, for the same may be said of scientific theories, each contradicting all the others. Do we throw all of them out then? Since only one or even zero may be the truth? Or do we pursue truth? Seek truth. It's worth it. The second problem is that your own world view, though you may not call it "religion" it indeed is your personal faith, your world view, and so it is equally suspect, thus you must abandon it as well. Welcome to the Pantheon. | ||
| H0gwash |
Blake, I don't dispute the value of the search for truth, I have had bad experiences with your preferred tools, so I have learned to use different tools. I acknowledge that the scientific method does involve that most corruptible of influences- other people- but I like the notion that greater transparency will flush out the errors more quickly.  |
