Kevin Graham wrote: Tell me how that is "unreliable"? If you cannot even prove X is untrue, then you cannot prove it is unreliable. This is just another nice way of calling theists irrational, which is again, unjustified in itself.
First of all theists are irrational, irrational in the sense that they don't have objective evidence for their particular god or gods.
Using evidence and reasoning is what makes a theory or decision or belief reliable. Of course one has to be able to critically evaluate the evidence and reasoning well. And the reasoning is dependent on the extent and quality of the evidence.
E.A. did not point out any fallacious premise.
The premise of logical positivism is fallacious.
I'm not convinced I adhere to strict logical positivism, just because E.A. says so. And frankly I've developed a dislike of philosophy. Resorting to these philsophical words which have their own definition in philosophy shouldn't be necessary in discussion.
So for example if I say science expects to use observations as well as predictive result observationsin formulating theoriesl..explain how that is fallacious. Don't tell me I adhere to logical positivism.
A belief is unjustified to others when there is nothing offered..which is the case with supernaturalistic claims.
But this side steps the point that a belief to me might be justified, and yet unjusitified to you. It is the epitome of arrogance to insist your perception of reality or more real than mine. You want to make a universal claims of unjustifiability and unreliability, about any belief unsupported by scientific verification.
Wait a minute if I put forward a belief which is completely unwarranted by objective evidence you too can say I'm being irrational. That's what being irrational is. Now if we focus on beliefs having to do with how the world operates, then science is involved, but not all beliefs involve science. And I appreciate that some decisions people make, they do so for reasons other than what is justified or what is more reasonable or what is in their best interests etc.
Further, most lay persons who accept scientifc theories shown on NOVA really don't know that they are true. They don't understand the mathematical equations and how they correspond to the laws of nature, etc. They simply have faith in scientists who declare them as truth.
Its more than faith. Some people have some understanding of the process and appreciate that over time, consensus theories within a scientific community tend to predominate. We rely on the school system which hopefully as well teaches the theories which have gained consensus. Overall consensus theories tend to be more reliable than ones which don't have consensus.
In what sense is that "reliable" when scientists have by far produced more failed hypotheses than successful ones? Do we have the edcuational expertise to determine which ones are right and which ones are wrong? And what about the fact that there are scientists pro and con on just about every scientific theory out there. All we are left with really is an appeal to consensus, which s a fallacy in and of itself. So who are we to call anyone else irrational for believing things we cannot prove to be untrue? Irrational people, that's who.
First of all understanding what science is and what it offers is important. It offers explanations of the perceived world. It doesn't offer a reality. It offers the best fit theories.. sometimes consensus agreed ..based upon the data available. But as better tools become available, different perspectives , new data,... theories may change or be modified. Scientific theories are evolutionary.
Believe whatever you wish, but don't expect others to believe you based on your say so of your experiences.
Of course not. They have to experience it for themselves. But you are the one acting as the missonary here, for what you prefer to call rationalism.
I just said believe whatever you wish, the video said the same. How am I acting like a missionary?
I'm sure you did. And this is my problem with E.A., in that he/she is likely to end up encouraging people to hold irrational beliefs rather than to appreciate the unreliability of such beliefs.
Well, you have not shown any of my beliefs about God to be unjustified, unreliable or irrational. Most God beliefs, I believe, are based on a deduction of facts and observations about the world around us, and not based on silly straw man examples such as lamps moved by ghosts or hypothetical dragons growling in the garage or tea pots orbiting the planet.
Ok, well I understand why people hold God beliefs. I don't view a non interfering in mankind God belief as irrational, though I appreciate strictly it is. But when one thinks about life and the universe, sure it is understandable and justified to believe a God created life. But when we start talking about a God of the Bible or the Book of Mormon, no I don't think that is rational, because it goes against the rational observation that man created the sacred texts, nothing in them indicates anything more than man created texts, all religions can not be true and yet each claim to be and there is no predictive value offered by the God's of any religion. Speculating, worshipping, etc on such Gods is in my opinion a complete waste of time and energy and in my opinion irrational.
Well let's allow ghosts to exist, voila they aren't supernatural. Well if they aren't supernatural then they must exist within natural physical laws. When you demonstrate this I'll believe you, meanwhile it's a waste of time speculating.
We're not talkng about whether it is worthy of speculation. We're talking about whether the belief has been shown to be unjustified or unreliable. It hasn't. Calling it such is unjustified.
Calling the belief in ghosts is irrational is not jusified? Well what is the justification for a ghost belief/theory? What is the evidence, what do ghosts do, and if we know what they do then what evidence bears that out. What predictive value does a ghost theory have? Let's test the theory and see if it offers any sort of reliability. You say it can't be tested? Then by what means can we evaluate this theory to determine it's reliability. The burden of proof that ghosts exists is on the claimant and anyone who rejects the claim are not obligated to disprove ghosts. But if people want to beleive in ghosts ..that's their choice.
Well of course if something explains everything, it will likely be well liked.
And that is also part of the reason so many people believe in God. A God explains everything for them, just not in a manner sympathetic to modern scientific convention. Likewise, so does String Theory. But scientists reject it for valid reasons that you mentioned.
Well it appears currently string theory has a similar problem to a God theory and that is no predictive value which can be foreseen to be verified. If a theory doesn't offer predictive value, and if it is highly speculative what good does it serve in helping to understand the world and how it operates as percieved by the senses?
f*** off. Have I discounted string theory?
I don't think you read me right. I didn't say you discounted it, though I would agree with you if you did. I said many, perhaps most scientists do, and they do so for valid reasons you already mentioned. I was trying to back you up a bit.
I don't discount it. I don't know enough about it to form an opinion, and frankly I doubt I ever will. However I see no problem with scientists proposing what appears to be a wild theory. Even if that theory yields nothing useful, it presents a different perspective which that alone may end up leading to the creation of a useful theory. It reminds me of Debono's lateral thinking concept.
The fact is it doesn't have consensus atm, maybe never will. And if some scientists see it as philosophy so be it, that's their perogative.
Yes, because the current scientific paradigm doesn't allow it.
Sure the current scientific paradigm allows it. That doesn't mean it has gained consensus acceptance, but speculative theories are allowed.
And back to what you said about Einstein being proved right later in life. Sure, he presented a testable prediction, but that alone shouldn't qualify it as science, otherwise religious claims predicting the second coming would be considered science until the prediction proved to be wrong.
I believe Einstein backed up his reasoning with math associated with the observed physical world. It's not like it created the theory out of thin air and had nothing to back it up.
Much of what Einstein came up wth seemed like science fiction at the time, and when quantum mechanics were discovered, he wanted no part of it because it totally disrupted his view of the universe. EVen when science journals were publshing articles on the discovery of the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces, he was acting as though they didn't exist. That is probably why he was such a staunch determinist. There is just too much unpredictable random activity in matter at the quantum level.
My understanding of science is limited but I believe there are some wild and wacky ideas far more interesting, far more creative than anything religion has dreamed up.