Evidence for God
- Thread starter RainyDayNinja
- Start date
- Status
No, and I didn't say that. The context was Dr. Z's objectivity definition. The intended meaning was that if objective experience says it's red, that still won't stop a handful of people from saying it's green. I think we're both agreed that such fruitcakes and ratbags exist. That doesn't make 'em you.
Di, for reasons of balance and fairness I want to concede that magic has one undeniable and potent power...
The power to make everything about ourselves.
I have a sincere request: Instead of convening the most talented magickians and scientists, please have a nice dinner at home with friends and celebrate being alive. Let someone else save the world instead.
If they save it using magick and the curtain rolls back and I see all that, I will definitely apologise to you personally. If they mess it up and an absurd massive threat comes before the end of March say this year, and I can confirm that instead and you're convinced you could have done it better, then obviously I'll owe you a new world.But I think it won't, which means you can relax and it also means that you're not (neither of us is) that important in the world.
Please consider.
I will definitely have a nice dinner with friends, in any case, thank you.
And, I respectfully, disagree with your last sentence. Everyone is vitally important in the world. Yeah, you too.
I think you think I'm qualified as a ratbag now.
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
You remember that I accepted your definition with qualifications, right? (Or at least, what I thought your definition was, since you neglected to quote it.)
Er.. no I was using it in its original etymological sense from 1610.
I agree. I didn't like Wikipedia's definition completely, but agreed that it was heading in roughly the right direction. I also don't think that you've interpreted it very well.
That should be easy to support with a quote from a solid, respected philosophical text say. Maybe that's what you need to do, Dr Z.
I'm surprised to see you say that. I'm usually criticised for my pedantry.
Hi, Dr. Z! Since you're evidently new to the discussion, let me catch you up. Ruv thinks that objective knowledge:
- Is realisable through independent corroborated observation;
- Need not be perfectly precise, complete or eternal;
- Is ordinary everyday 'there's a chive on your tooth' knowledge;
- Doesn't require special language to talk about;
- Doesn't require philosophers to define; but
- Does require us to separate speculation and conviction from the input of our senses -- something that most people do quite easily, but not all.
- Is an atheist;
- Opposes militant atheism, thinks Dawkins has overstepped a bit and needs his political wings clipped;
- Thinks some theistic, mystical and magical thought has overstepped a lot historically, and will occasionally rant about that in this forum;
- Reads and writes poetry and fantasy stories;
- Has a high regard for moral and ethical thought;
- Loves a sunset as much as anyone.
I agree, but I'd argue that the purpose of religious language has on the whole, not been to further objective knowledge.
I've linked the article once already, but here it is again. Gould described himself as a Jewish agnostic, by the way. Here's the quote:
I've no idea where you got the notion that he was an atheist, since as always you supplied no references.
I don't recall reading a quote like that, Dr Z. Please supply it.
I don't believe that the language of science has become dominant. (Ask most people what a titration is; unless they've done one they probably won't know) But I do think that just as religion has appropriated other thought in the past (e.g. Christian appropriation of pagan thought), it's happy to appropriate scientific thought for its own purposes too -- whether that's to further mysticism (e.g. in Scientology), or the assumption and defence of its authority (e.g. Intelligent Design).
I hope you don't think me responsible for all that!
Er... I would. 'God' is primarily an answer to 'why' questions, but science doesn't answer 'why' questions. It can't possibly comment credibly on anything outside 'how'. So I'm with Gould on this: science and religion can happily co-exist -- with my added caveat, which I think strengthens Gould's: as long as religion doesn't presume to speak authoritatively about the objective world.
Fixed it for ya.
One of the seminal Western philosophies in which ideas have their own existence was Plato's. In his view, anyone who believed what they saw was a ninny, and that's doubtless what he'd have thought of me. But not all philosophers believe Plato. Carl Sagan for example:Cosmos said:
Au contraire, I see great value in non-scientific language! Why just yesterday I wrote the following line in a poem:
When soul is clad in rank and carrion veal
It wasn't my poem, but the poem of a boar-god. But I wrote it, since the boar-god is a fictional character and doesn't exist in our objective world, and even if he did, he probably couldn't use a keyboard. But regardless, all that talk of dressing souls in rotting veal is very unscientific.
But I can say with fair certainty (because I penned it), that that line was not principally a contribution to our understanding of our shared, objective world. Rather, it was a contribution to the mood of the fictional world of the boar-god. It was written purely for beauty; not for truth.
But notwithstanding, there is a poetic truth in it. In the boar-god's mind, the line refers to dysmorphia -- people loathing their own bodies. But for many readers, I think it won't mean that; it'll just be a repulsive image.
As a musician who self-trained to play several instruments by ear, and a former scientist who's often insensitive to aesthetics and emotions in his rational thought, I'd have to agree with your premise, but not your conclusion.
I didn't know you were asking me to evaluate evidence. Do you have some?
Dr Z, you said that you bat for team science, but I'm not sure that team science would pick you for the game. I haven't seen you post a single specific definition, even when requested to do so, or quote a single source literally, or link your references, or supply any evidence outside your own opinion. So I'm wondering whether you're arguing just for the sake of it.
I think it's time to ask: where are you going with this? If it's to heap scorn and argue that there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, I think you've done that.
Last edited:
Paul
Banned
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
My world isn't so simple. I have friends who think they can stop traffic-lights with their power of will, and other friends who think they can manipulate people with the power of their mind alone. So either I'm happy to have ratbags as friends, or it takes more than wacked out Xena-beliefs for me to think that someone is a ratbag.
You be the judge.
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
... for dinner parties, maybe. But when you're trying to put
First you dismiss what I said and then you affirm it. But like I said, I'd argue that your use of the term "objective knowledge" is much too vague for it to be applied and used as evidence for anything. It's not a trivial matter.
Last edited:
Ah, back to pot shots that most won't notice (nice to see you remember my thread and my messiah complex).
I hope everyone finds a way, everyday, to try and Save the World in some manner. I don't mind if someone else does it first, that's cool, but if a job needs doing and nobody's steppin up...somebody's got to do it.
I find it interesting that despite your complete certainty in your beliefs, you find it necessary to use insults (even subtle ones) to fight your logical battles. And yet you claim to be against Dawkins' militant atheism. I fail to see the difference. It least I know I'm crazy (and I need to be). What's your problem? I'm politically an atheist (or secularist, if you prefer). I don't push the crazy ideas and try and make policy. If I and like minded people fiddle with things you don't believe, why do you care so f-ing much? No one is being forced to believe anything I say, in fact, I'd advise against it.
You gave Alan Moore a pass. He was an artist, you said. What am I chopped suey? Hello, two Spectrum Award nominated novels, with IPPY and BOTY Award finals as well.
So, in the spirit of full disclosure:
WTF?
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
Di, I already explained to you: I have vestigial emotions. (You seem to think that I'm fibbing, but I'm not.)
In my wild and natural state, scorn is how I do disagreement (so I work hard to curb that), and teasing is how I do affection. As evidence, check out some of my exchanges in this forum with the absent and much-lamented Higgins, with whom I seldom disagreed, and whom I teased mercilessly. Or check out my exchanges with the worthy AMCrenshaw, with whom I only disagree in fine particulars, and whom I tease constantly.
You could ask me to stop, and I might even agree, but I'm not sure that such a promise would be worth a stevedore's spit.
My suggestion: bask in it. I don't tease just everyone.
In my wild and natural state, scorn is how I do disagreement (so I work hard to curb that), and teasing is how I do affection. As evidence, check out some of my exchanges in this forum with the absent and much-lamented Higgins, with whom I seldom disagreed, and whom I teased mercilessly. Or check out my exchanges with the worthy AMCrenshaw, with whom I only disagree in fine particulars, and whom I tease constantly.
You could ask me to stop, and I might even agree, but I'm not sure that such a promise would be worth a stevedore's spit.
My suggestion: bask in it. I don't tease just everyone.
Di, I already explained to you: I have vestigial emotions. (You seem to think that I'm fibbing, but I'm not.)
In my wild and natural state, scorn is how I do disagreement (so I work hard to curb that), and teasing is how I do affection. As evidence, check out some of my exchanges in this forum with the absent and much-lamented Higgins, with whom I seldom disagreed, and whom I teased mercilessly. Or check out my exchanges with the worthy AMCrenshaw, with whom I only disagree in fine particulars, and whom I tease constantly.
You could ask me to stop, and I might even agree, but I'm not sure that such a promise would be worth a stevedore's spit.
My suggestion: bask in it. I don't tease just everyone.
Ah, well, then, I'm honored. By all means, keep it up. Happy Equinox!
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
Not at all! I embraced what you referenced (with minor qualifications), but dismissed what you made of it.
I'm not convinced. I suspect you're skimming over some critical problems. If I understand your definition of objective knowledge correctly, wouldn't that make the peer-review process in science redundant? Isn't that the one reason why we use the peer-review process. Because we don't have access to any objective truths, the best we can do is have all the best minds within a field look at something, and if they can't find anything wrong with it, we will have to conclude that we did our best and proclaim it truth and fact. I'm not saying that there's any other better method for finding the truth. I do think this is the best we can do.
Objective Knowledge = Practical Knowledge?
Therefore
Subjective Knowledge = Impractical knowledge?
Or is this an unfair assessment?
The irony of me batting for team God in this thread finally hit me. Most of team God would rather have nothing to do with me, I'm sure.
Last edited:
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
No... exhaustive independent corroboration is what lets us know that the info is objective. It's what tells us that the observation does not depend on who's looking or how they're looking.
You look at your hair and think it's red. But is it? Is that just your own view? So you ask a friend. 'It's definitely red', she says. But is she just telling you what you want to hear? So you snip some locks, and you get some hair from other people, and you label your samples. Then you ask some people and they all say hair B -- your hair -- is red. But were you ignoring the dissenters, or subtly coaching them to say red?
So you run a double-blind experiment where your friend labels the hair this time, and you take down the responses without seeing the hair. You come out of this experiment and find, lo! 99% of the respondents said that your hair was red, and 1% said it was something else (a few said brown, and one said blonde). You've discovered objectively (i.e. independent of any given observer) that nearly all humans see your hair as red, and you can speculate that some handful may not see your hair as red, and perhaps one either has no sense of colour or is a fruitcake.
What you've discovered is objective info. It doesn't tell you conclusively that your hair is red, but that most people see it as red. And you can be confident of that because of the way you ran the experiment. So 'Nearly everyone sees my hair as red' is your objective knowledge. From there, you can happily say 'My hair is red' as a shortcut, knowing that nearly everyone will know what you mean.
No, I don't believe in objective knowledge per se. But I think there's such things as the models we construct to be useful.
I wouldn't impose an either/or on the situation anyhow.
AMC
No... exhaustive independent corroboration is what lets us know that the info is objective. It's what tells us that the observation does not depend on who's looking or how they're looking.
You look at your hair and think it's red. But is it? Is that just your own view? So you ask a friend. 'It's definitely red', she says. But is she just telling you what you want to hear? So you snip some locks, and you get some hair from other people, and you label your samples. Then you ask some people and they all say hair B -- your hair -- is red. But were you ignoring the dissenters, or subtly coaching them to say red?
So you run a double-blind experiment where your friend labels the hair this time, and you take down the responses without seeing the hair. You come out of this experiment and find, lo! 99% of the respondents said that your hair was red, and 1% said it was something else (a few said brown, and one said blonde). You've discovered objectively (i.e. independent of any given observer) that nearly all humans see your hair as red, and you can speculate that some handful may not see your hair as red, and perhaps one either has no sense of colour or is a fruitcake.
What you've discovered is objective info. It doesn't tell you conclusively that your hair is red, but that most people see it as red. And you can be confident of that because of the way you ran the experiment. So 'Nearly everyone sees my hair as red' is your objective knowledge. From there, you can happily say 'My hair is red' as a shortcut, knowing that nearly everyone will know what you mean.
So where's the cut off point? Where's the border between objective and subjective knowledge? Is one other person agreeing with you enough? Or five? Does it matter what kind of education is good enough? How do I know their education is good enough? Does it matter what the subject is? Do you see the problem yet, or do you need more questions?
If you use vague language then nobody who agrees with you, know what they're agreeing with. Vague language might resonate with the reader, but then that reaction is 100% purely emotional. It's just poetry. It also robs you of any of the critiques you have of religion. Which is what you wanted to get away from wasn't it?
Last edited:
We also will never know if the red one person sees is the same color another person sees--for all we know they might being seeing green but green is their red.
It all remains subjective. Objective knowledge is a convenient fallacy with some uses. That is all.
It all remains subjective. Objective knowledge is a convenient fallacy with some uses. That is all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
FYI, technical term for this is in psychology, neurology and philosophy is "Qualia".
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
It's really simple, and it's the flip-side of the argument you've been making...
Objective information is that which remains unchanged when you change the observer to arbitrary but reasonable viewpoints.
What's 'reasonable'? It depends on the purpose of observation. If you don't know why you observe, you may have trouble deciding what's a reasonable viewpoint and therefore you can't decide what's objective.
One description of 'rational' is to know why you do what you do, not to wait for the results to tell you why you did what you did.
- Status