Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Holy Crap!
User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by rasetsu » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:59 am

JimC wrote:
FBM wrote:Even scientists can lose a wheel off the wagon when it comes to non-scientific topics. I think there was a book or slogan or something along the lines of 'Why Smart People Do Stupid Things.'
Change that to "Topics they haven't mastered" and I'll agree...

I'd make a dick of myself talking about geology at anything more than a superficial level, and many other branches of science as well...

However, I can make a fair fist at discussing 20th century Australian poetry...
Somehow, I do believe you can make a fair fist of it, or, at least, a fair fisting of it.



That must be an Australianism, or something.



User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by Tyrannical » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:12 pm

The REAL question is does science and skepticism lead to rationalism :prof:

From my experience with the "ratskep" atheist types, the answer is no.
They can be just as guilty of self delusion when science interferes with their morality as any young Earth creationist.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by rasetsu » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:45 pm

Tyrannical wrote:The REAL question is does science and skepticism lead to rationalism :prof:

From my experience with the "ratskep" atheist types, the answer is no.
They can be just as guilty of self delusion when science interferes with their morality as any young Earth creationist.
The deeper question is what do these three terms refer to, and in what way are they related.

I'm rather skeptical of all three.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by Animavore » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:58 pm

rainbow wrote:
Animavore wrote:
tattuchu wrote:I can understand the Christian's opinion though don't agree with it. Consider our species. What are we? We're sacks of meat. Cut us open and that's all we are, just meat. And yet we think, we speak, we reason, we dream, we create. What animates us? How could this be possible except for the grace of God?
Or by the grace of electro-biochemical processes.
It explains a how, but not a why.

That is why the arguments are at cross purposes. They are both right, but answering different questions.
:smug:
Oh really? What is the "why" answer? In fact what is the "why" question? It may be no more sensible to ask "why" for some questions than it is for an annoying, brat kid to keep asking "but why? ... but why?" about every irrelevant detail untll you want to eject him from the car. "How" questions may be the only sensible and answerable questions we have.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13761
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by rainbow » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:31 pm

Animavore wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Animavore wrote:
tattuchu wrote:I can understand the Christian's opinion though don't agree with it. Consider our species. What are we? We're sacks of meat. Cut us open and that's all we are, just meat. And yet we think, we speak, we reason, we dream, we create. What animates us? How could this be possible except for the grace of God?
Or by the grace of electro-biochemical processes.
It explains a how, but not a why.

That is why the arguments are at cross purposes. They are both right, but answering different questions.
:smug:
Oh really?
Yes, quite so. It is real.
What is the "why" answer?
If we knew, then we wouldn't have a question.
In fact what is the "why" question?
What is the meaning of life?
Why do we exist?
It may be no more sensible to ask "why" for some questions than it is for an annoying, brat kid to keep asking "but why? ... but why?" about every irrelevant detail untll you want to eject him from the car. "How" questions may be the only sensible and answerable questions we have.
You may be entitled to hold that opininion, but it is in fact quite wrong.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
hiyymer
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:18 am

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by hiyymer » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:09 pm

tattuchu wrote:
Animavore wrote:
tattuchu wrote:I can understand the Christian's opinion though don't agree with it. Consider our species. What are we? We're sacks of meat. Cut us open and that's all we are, just meat. And yet we think, we speak, we reason, we dream, we create. What animates us? How could this be possible except for the grace of God?
Or by the grace of electro-biochemical processes.
That's simply the mechanism by which God's hand directs us :prof:
IMHO it's more likely that God IS the electro-biochemical processes; the "mechanism". Science is seeing the mechanism from the point of view of inductive reasoning and objective material reality. Religion is seeing the mechanism as an experience; the brain's attribution of agency to that part of the mechanism which is beyond the immaterial conscious self. Much of God's attributed nature is consistent with the scientific view of "what animates us". God creates the I in the mind. God assures the evolved maintenance of homeostasis. God draws us to each other. All because God IS the mechanism. To me, it's true that God creates us, every minute of the day, and that God is an active agent in our lives to the extent that any agent is active in our lives (they're all immaterial inventions of the evolved brain). So I think religion gets off base when it says that God is the all powerful material creator of the universe as well. The mechanism can't create itself. Rationalists react correctly to question the material creator-of-everything God, and the religionist's aren't giving it up. So here we are, stuck on that one point.

User avatar
Calilasseia
Butterfly
Butterfly
Posts: 5272
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:31 pm
About me: Destroyer of canards, and merciless shredder of bad ideas. :twisted:
Location: 40,000 feet above you, dropping JDAMs
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by Calilasseia » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:35 pm

Of course, "why?" is a much misused word in supernaturalist apologetics. It's invariably erected as a shorthand for "who determined or decreed this?", in the hope that no one will notice that the whole idea of a "who" determining or decreeing the outcome is itself a gigantic blind assertion. All too frequently, however, when a child uses the word "Why?", he uses it (though not usually knowingly so) as a shorthand for "what reasons underpin this?", without any prior bias with respect to the nature of the underpinning reasons. Which is why I consider it an abuse to fob a child off with variations on the "Magic Man did it, now shut up" pseudo-answer.

As for the question of whether or not a god type entity exists, one statement we can safely erect, is that it isn't any of the entities asserted to exist by any of our mythologies, because these entities are manifestly the products of ignorant, superstitious, pre-scientific minds with narrow, parochial imaginations. Any god type entity that does actually exist, will almost certainly be radically different from anything we've experienced before, and will almost certainly falsify all of the mythologies humans have invented at a stroke, if it bothers to show itself someday. Indeed, if I were that entity, I'd try and find a way of answering the question once and for all, so that [1] I could turn round to humanity and say "Right, you have your answer, now stop the stupid bickering, and devote yourself to something useful, like particle physics or evolutionary biology", and [2] so that I could wipe the smirk off William Lane Craig's face. :mrgreen:

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by rasetsu » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:25 am




That an assumption is naive or ignorantly postulated is no evidence that it is incorrect. That's a side of the fallacy fallacy, that because a conclusion was reached by fallacious reasoning, the conclusion is therefore false.



User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by Rum » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:32 am

A refreshingly different take on world history by Andrew Marr is currently running on BBC. Here is you want to look: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00xnr43

Last night's programme was about the Enlightenment, starting with Galileo and the fact that he was forced to recant leading up to the age of revolutions and the cycle of idealism, revolution and despotism. Marr linked the ideas rather well I thought.

What was fascinating to me in the early part of the programme was that despite systematic institutional suppression of the truth, as uncovered by science and rational thinking, vested interests - in this case the Roman Catholic church which fought every step of the way to impose their version of reality, rationalism won the day. It still goes on today and yet many people do not seem to have learned the lesson.

User avatar
hiyymer
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:18 am

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by hiyymer » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:37 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, "why?" is a much misused word in supernaturalist apologetics. It's invariably erected as a shorthand for "who determined or decreed this?", in the hope that no one will notice that the whole idea of a "who" determining or decreeing the outcome is itself a gigantic blind assertion. All too frequently, however, when a child uses the word "Why?", he uses it (though not usually knowingly so) as a shorthand for "what reasons underpin this?", without any prior bias with respect to the nature of the underpinning reasons. Which is why I consider it an abuse to fob a child off with variations on the "Magic Man did it, now shut up" pseudo-answer.

As for the question of whether or not a god type entity exists, one statement we can safely erect, is that it isn't any of the entities asserted to exist by any of our mythologies, because these entities are manifestly the products of ignorant, superstitious, pre-scientific minds with narrow, parochial imaginations. Any god type entity that does actually exist, will almost certainly be radically different from anything we've experienced before, and will almost certainly falsify all of the mythologies humans have invented at a stroke, if it bothers to show itself someday. Indeed, if I were that entity, I'd try and find a way of answering the question once and for all, so that [1] I could turn round to humanity and say "Right, you have your answer, now stop the stupid bickering, and devote yourself to something useful, like particle physics or evolutionary biology", and [2] so that I could wipe the smirk off William Lane Craig's face. :mrgreen:
"the whole idea of a "who" determining or decreeing the outcome is itself a gigantic blind assertion."

"when a child uses the word "Why?", he uses it..."

I would say that science has pretty clearly demonstrated that material reality is a meaningless, purposeless, amoral mechanism. Meaning, purpose, morality, and agency are all immaterial creations of a brain which occur as part of the mechanism. Those things don't exist in material reality, but only in our conscious experience.

I remember watching a pbs documentary once on these researchers who had programmed a group of robots with some very basic survival tactics and let them go at it in a large room. The impression was overwhelming that those robots were alive in the sense of having agency, a will, and purpose. But clearly none of those things existed in the robots. The robots didn't care what the outcome of the bits and bytes would be. They had no consciousness or brain or bodily emotional states. They had no "self" in there making things happen for one rationalization or another. You can say the "will" was designed in by the researchers, but we now know that the designing in of the biological organism is itself a purposeless process called natural selection. Things are the way they are only because they are, and not because there is a material purpose to their being. The robot's will and purpose only exists in the consciousness that is observing it, using agency as a normal mode of coping, not because agency is the material rational truth, but because the convention of agency in consciousness works; has been naturally selected; helps the brain react to an unknowable future.

So the "who" is a gigantic blind irrational assertion, and also the convention of consciousness without which we wouldn't be here talking about the child using words, as if the agent that the brain imposes on the child is the source of the words.

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by MrJonno » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:32 pm

God is just another name for magic, to me its just so unsatisfying to say if I don't understand something to call it magic. Even if magic existed I would want to study it, test it no just give up and say too hard for humans. Its a cop out
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by rasetsu » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:44 am

hiyymer wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Of course, "why?" is a much misused word in supernaturalist apologetics. It's invariably erected as a shorthand for "who determined or decreed this?", in the hope that no one will notice that the whole idea of a "who" determining or decreeing the outcome is itself a gigantic blind assertion. All too frequently, however, when a child uses the word "Why?", he uses it (though not usually knowingly so) as a shorthand for "what reasons underpin this?", without any prior bias with respect to the nature of the underpinning reasons. Which is why I consider it an abuse to fob a child off with variations on the "Magic Man did it, now shut up" pseudo-answer.

As for the question of whether or not a god type entity exists, one statement we can safely erect, is that it isn't any of the entities asserted to exist by any of our mythologies, because these entities are manifestly the products of ignorant, superstitious, pre-scientific minds with narrow, parochial imaginations. Any god type entity that does actually exist, will almost certainly be radically different from anything we've experienced before, and will almost certainly falsify all of the mythologies humans have invented at a stroke, if it bothers to show itself someday. Indeed, if I were that entity, I'd try and find a way of answering the question once and for all, so that [1] I could turn round to humanity and say "Right, you have your answer, now stop the stupid bickering, and devote yourself to something useful, like particle physics or evolutionary biology", and [2] so that I could wipe the smirk off William Lane Craig's face. :mrgreen:
"the whole idea of a "who" determining or decreeing the outcome is itself a gigantic blind assertion."

"when a child uses the word "Why?", he uses it..."

I would say that science has pretty clearly demonstrated that material reality is a meaningless, purposeless, amoral mechanism. Meaning, purpose, morality, and agency are all immaterial creations of a brain which occur as part of the mechanism. Those things don't exist in material reality, but only in our conscious experience.

I remember watching a pbs documentary once on these researchers who had programmed a group of robots with some very basic survival tactics and let them go at it in a large room. The impression was overwhelming that those robots were alive in the sense of having agency, a will, and purpose. But clearly none of those things existed in the robots. The robots didn't care what the outcome of the bits and bytes would be. They had no consciousness or brain or bodily emotional states. They had no "self" in there making things happen for one rationalization or another. You can say the "will" was designed in by the researchers, but we now know that the designing in of the biological organism is itself a purposeless process called natural selection. Things are the way they are only because they are, and not because there is a material purpose to their being. The robot's will and purpose only exists in the consciousness that is observing it, using agency as a normal mode of coping, not because agency is the material rational truth, but because the convention of agency in consciousness works; has been naturally selected; helps the brain react to an unknowable future.

So the "who" is a gigantic blind irrational assertion, and also the convention of consciousness without which we wouldn't be here talking about the child using words, as if the agent that the brain imposes on the child is the source of the words.
:clap:



User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by Jason » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:04 am

hiyymer wrote:I would say that science has pretty clearly demonstrated that material reality is a meaningless, purposeless, amoral mechanism. Meaning, purpose, morality, and agency are all immaterial creations of a brain which occur as part of the mechanism. Those things don't exist in material reality, but only in our conscious experience.
I would disagree with you on the fact that, as self-aware and emotive beings, we do not exist in a strictly 'material reality'. If someone punches me I may experience the rush of adrenaline which presages a fight or flight response, but as a self-aware being I have the choice to make whether to fight, flee, or do something else entirely. In other words, human beings (at least) are not deterministic automatons whose output is dependent on nothing but the input. We are not cogs in the great machine of the universe. We have this ugly little thing called freewill which makes us something philosophers like to call 'free agents'. Now I'm sure this is all very upsetting to the strictly 'sciency types' here, and I read some books (notably by Mark Hauser) which espouse the idea that our responses to certain stimulae are indeed predetermined and beyond our control, however, even if one was to accept these sorts of hypotheses, it does not preclude free agency in all things (or even most things). What I'm driving at here is we impose, yes impose, immaterial structures of our own device on a 'material reality', but they are, nonetheless, real. What some people call 'morality' is a set of personal mores shared and agreed upon by those people. These same people often go on to form a culture and eventually a society which has laws based on these mores, where individual people are (usually) not assigned a purpose, but society as a whole gains one in its inception - an emergent property if you like - and individuals are free to choose their role within this self-purposed, and moral, artificial (yes artificial) construct, and find meaning and purpose in their reality. So the questions of 'who' and 'why' are not "gigantic blind assertions" as they relate to this artificial, imposed, yet nevertheless real, construct or as they relate to any other artificial, imposed, yet nevertheless real, construct.

User avatar
amused
amused
Posts: 3873
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:04 pm
About me: Reinvention phase initiated
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by amused » Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:56 pm

MrJonno wrote:God is just another name for magic, to me its just so unsatisfying to say if I don't understand something to call it magic. Even if magic existed I would want to study it, test it no just give up and say too hard for humans. Its a cop out

Not to be tedious...
Arthur C. Clarke - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Does science and rationalism always lead to scepticism?

Post by mistermack » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:24 pm

amused wrote:
MrJonno wrote:God is just another name for magic, to me its just so unsatisfying to say if I don't understand something to call it magic. Even if magic existed I would want to study it, test it no just give up and say too hard for humans. Its a cop out

Not to be tedious...
Arthur C. Clarke - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
Trying even harder not to be even tediouser, that statement says nothing. It's a self-evident, ( or whatever the word is ).
If it's distinguishable, then it's not sufficiently advanced. It can't be wrong, but it says fuck-all.

In any case, things might be indistinguishable to some people, but not to others. Does he mean indistinguishable to ANY human mind?

With most technology these days, very few people actually understand what's happening. But we don't regard it as magic. So long as SOMEONE gets it, we take their word for it.

If aliens arrived with mysterious technology, it's not likely we'd regard it as magic.
Although some would.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests