11 Sep 08
Originally posted by PalynkaBut you agree that they would fall when compared to academic sociologists anyway. The opinion of the people who are not aware of this exact science has nothing to do with the fact that these scientists are not decent. Their audience must evaluate everything and not follow blindly nobody. There are scientific isues and magz almost for every field.
Dawkins is one of many, but the cap would definitely fit him.
Your second paragraph is basically a No True Scotsman fallacy. Scientists are only human. That some do not fit your vision of what a "true" scientist should be is not very relevant.
So I agree with you that this lot of scientists are a plague, and this was my point at the 2nd paragraph;
11 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetle... and bashing you over the head with the box when you disagree.
No science over here! I would rather say that this sitiuation is like having your White King stuck on h1 and moving him fervently a square to the left in order to avoid to be chackmated, insisting that your move is legal;
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetleSo Palynka let's go through this case:
But you agree that they would fall when compared to academic sociologists anyway. The opinion of the people who are not aware of this exact science has nothing to do with the fact that these scientists are not decent. Their audience must evaluate everything and not follow blindly nobody. There are scientific isues and magz almost for every field.
So I ...[text shortened]... e with you that this lot of scientists are a plague, and this was my point at the 2nd paragraph;
We may agree that a producive scientist starts usually from a problem. He tries to understand the problem itself and every parameter that has to do with it, and at that stage he tries to pass from the physical world (in which he detected the problem) to the mental world (I refer to the world of our psychical, consious and unconscious situations and conditions), and then to promote his concept by his scientific means to the mind world (I refer to the world that contains the ideas behind all the results and the products of the Human thoughs). I recall that Popper used to refer to these three "worlds" as World 1, World 2 and World 3.
So our good scientist is actually trying to conceive a quality that belongs to the World 3, and while he breaks his head for a solution he usually applies to his scientific bibliography or he uses other means of his field or other well accepted theses (based on scientific finds and evidence) from other scientific fields; but usually "his problem" is not mentioned in those books/ finds etc. On the other hand, our workacholic scientist may have find "his problem" (transferred to the World 1!) due to complications in the know theory/ theories;
At this point he has to elaborate on his own for he has to achieve a better understanding of "his problem", better than every other previous theory could allow. And only then he will find the solution -the new theory.
He then will check everything on his own, and only when he will be sure that his theory can survive any hard attack of his fellow scientists he will publish it. Again, his new theory will be for ever under fire for the known reasons, and surely it may collapse;
So it seems to me that actually it 's almost impossible for a productive scientist to find a place to hide, P pal;
12 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI think your missing my point. Just because someone is a scientist, doesn't mean he is scientific about his criticisms of religion.
So Palynka let's go through this case:
We may agree that a producive scientist starts usually from a problem. He tries to understand the problem itself and every parameter that has to do with it, and at that stage he tries to pass from the physical world (in which he detected the problem) to the mental world (I refer to the world of our psychical, c lly it 's almost impossible for a productive scientist to find a place to hide, P pal;
In fact, most of the arguments against religion I've seen here are fallacious. The most common fallacies being hasty generalizations (such as the one in the original post, even if it's perhaps a simple provocation) and slippery slope argumentations.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat you mean "scientific about his criticisms of religion"?
I think your missing my point. Just because someone is a scientist, doesn't mean he is scientific about his criticisms of religion.
In fact, most of the arguments against religion I've seen here are fallacious. The most common fallacies being hasty generalizations (such as the one in the original post, even if it's perhaps a simple provocation) and slippery slope argumentations.
If a religious thesis is anti-science, you can.
If someone wants to promote a theological thesis as a philosophical hypothesis, you can.
My arguments regarding the concept of the religion are not at all fallacious I reckon. What's wrong in your opinion with my original post?
🙂
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetle[Our Theist friends] really seem to me incapable to enjoy a debate and to promote a decent and fruitful conversation...
What you mean "scientific about his criticisms of religion"?
If a religious thesis is anti-science, you can.
If someone wants to promote a theological thesis as a philosophical hypothesis, you can.
My arguments regarding the concept of the religion are not at all fallacious I reckon. What's wrong in your opinion with my original post?
🙂
Hasty generalization. You take a few examples from your recent arguments and you use them to do a broad brush attack on theists.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by PalynkaNot at all. This is not a hast generalization.
[Our Theist friends] really seem to me incapable to enjoy a debate and to promote a decent and fruitful conversation...
Hasty generalization. You take a few examples from your recent arguments and you use them to do a broad brush attack on theists.
Here at RHP yes, I had the chance to be in touch only with Kelly Jay, jaywill, knightmeister, ToO and epiphenehas, and only ToO seemed reasonable. My original post is not refered to them, alhtough I don't claim that I don't consider these four persons as theists incapable for a decent conversation.
In my country we have an issue with the religionist Orhodoxs. For example, some years ago 2 million Greeks were on the roads for days, behind preachers which they were walking at the first line carrying their holy flags and icons, shouting that the government should never accept the new EU IDs because "...they were stamped by the Antichrist itself" and a whole pack of similar nonsense; many recognised Greek Orthodox figures are really leaving in the past, and as a feuilletonist I wrote (and still write) from time to time about this situation, proving that their theological thesis is a pure stupidity and, in many occasions, discriminative.
Many friends of mine are good Christians, my mother too is a good Christian and I never had the slightest problem to debate decently with them. I was in touch wth priests that their flawless arguments were so inspired that they gave to me and to everybody the impression that they were full of Love and compassion, and really they were. I have no problem with the spiritualism of the individual but with the religionism, regardless the religion and the denomination. My original post has to do with the religionists, which they surely are incapable to debate decently. If some of them are active here at RHP, well this is a coincidence.
My arguments are always rational. Prove me that I am wrong and I will immediately accept your thesis, grateful because you gave me your sweet time and the chance to learn from you. But talking to a religionist is like talking to a stone. You in person, you estimate that you can or that you cannot have "a decent convesation" with me?
13 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetlethe problem is dear beetle, that when a faith is based not on reason, but on a type of 'experience', 'or emotionalism'. then it is very hard, even for a theist to debate, converse with, form constructive criticism of, or sometimes even understand the point of view. how can one reason with something that is not based on reason, its is nigh impossible. what is more, in many of the cases, the effect of this lack of reason, is that the adherent themselves, then reflects back this lack of reasonableness, when one is trying to converse with them, and they inevitably take on the nature of the thoughts that they are trying to convey, unreasonableness. ' i have my faith i have my faith, is what they cry', yes that may be the case, but on what is it based? thus you are correct, you must go away and speak to the nearest brick wall in the hope that some of the sound waves shall reverberate against it and echo out into the world, for at least then you may have recourse to reflection upon those words to determine their merit or otherwise.
Not at all. This is not a hast generalization.
Here at RHP yes, I had the chance to be in touch only with Kelly Jay, jaywill, knightmeister, ToO and epiphenehas, and only ToO seemed reasonable. My original post is not refered to them, alhtough I don't claim that I don't consider these four persons as theists incapable for a decent conversation.
In person, you estimate that you can or that you cannot have "a decent convesation" with me?
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have neither fixed plans nor intention, I left the so called "absolute truth" behind😵
the problem is dear beetle, that when a faith is based not on reason, but on a type of 'experience', 'or emotionalism'. then it is very hard, even for a theist to debate, converse with, form constructive criticism of, or sometimes even understand the point of view. how can one reason with something that is not based on reason, its is nigh impossible ...[text shortened]... ou may have recourse to reflection upon those words to determine their merit or otherwise.