Peterson Misleading Again

[_mikwut]

I must agree with Daniel concerning the belief in counter-intuitive facts coming before empirical evidence and relativity is a perfect historical example of this. Michael Polyani explains this in great detail concerning his letters with Einstein. Einstein had to fight a bitter battle prior to empiricism's white horse trotting in.

(by the way Daniel have you read Polyani?)

Best, mikwut

[_Daniel Peterson]

by the way Daniel have you read Polyani?

I read him a long, long time ago, but not very seriously.

Lately, though, because of some directions in which I'm thinking, I've become really interested in revisiting him. The concept of "tacit knowledge" has begun to draw my attention a lot.

[_mikwut]

Daniel,

It fascinates me. My reading of Thomas Reid brought me to Plantinga and that brought me to Polyani years ago, I honestly don't understand how the church hasn't really grabbed a hold of similar lines of thought, as I read the scriptures, D&C 9 for no uncertain example; I found a lot of correspondence. And, not so incidentally it corresponds with my own experience.

Regards, mikwut

[_Daniel Peterson]

It fascinates me. My reading of Thomas Reid brought me to Plantinga and that brought me to Polyani years ago, I honestly don't understand how the church hasn't really grabbed a hold of similar lines of thought, as I read the scriptures, D&C 9 for no uncertain example; I found a lot of correspondence. And, not so incidentally it corresponds with my own experience.

Have you written anything along these lines for publication? Or considered doing so?

I, personally, would be very interested in seeing what you come up with.

(Gosh! I have to say that the thought that something positive and useful might have come out of my exchanges on this board today is pleasantly surprising. Really.)

[_mikwut]

Daniel,

I have many rough drafts of things but nothing formal, I would love to email you some thoughts and ideas.

regards,

mikwut

[Tator]

So why did scientists accept the Big Bang before there was empirical, testable, supporting evidence?

Could it be because it was a coherent theory that had the power to predict and explain?

It's unfortunate that some people will use things like quantum theory as an excuse to believe counter-intuitive things that have no empirical, testable evidence, and have no coherence, and no power to predict and explain. Let's go with the translating disappearing gold plates with a peep stone.

What is the empirical evidence that anyone can translate an unknown language with a peep stone, often without even looking at the text?

What is the empirical evidence that anyone can see underground buried treasures with a peep stone?

Where is the coherence behind the theory that Joseph Smith could see underground buried treasures with a peep stone? (like, for example, why didn't he just dig up a treasure for his family to save them from their financial woes)

Now explain to me why the evidence for translating an unknown language from disappearing gold plates with a peep stone is superior to the evidence for a telephone psychic being able to give you winning lottery numbers.

I know, from past experience, that one of your favorite pieces of "empirical evidence" are the witness statements. So how reliable, in general, are eye witness statements? How reliable are eye witness statements of supernatural events? How reliable are eye witness statements that have been prepared by someone else before-hand and simply signed? What mental processing contamination is at risk of taking place during these processes? Any empirical evidence to help you out there? Do all the eye witnesses of alien abductions mean we should believe that aliens really are abducting mass numbers of people?

And by the way, if talk of the scientific method is naïve and irrelevant, then you really shouldn't have tried to use counter-intuitive examples that are based on it. Don't blame me for taking your examples seriously.

[_beastie]

Oh, and please point out where my frank summary of Christianity was inaccurate, since you used an obviously inaccurate (and insulting to a certain religious sect) summary of evolution as a counter-point. Or do you concede that point?

by the way, speaking of that certain religious sect, I'm betting they have plenty of eye witnesses and empirical evidence supporting their belief that God will protect snake handlers who have enough faith. I know that's counter-intuitive, but hey, scientists believed in the Big Bang before there was supportive empirical evidence.

[_Trevor]

Daniel,

It fascinates me. My reading of Thomas Reid brought me to Plantinga and that brought me to Polyani years ago, I honestly don't understand how the church hasn't really grabbed a hold of similar lines of thought, as I read the scriptures, D&C 9 for no uncertain example; I found a lot of correspondence. And, not so incidentally it corresponds with my own experience.

Regards, mikwut

Both he (Michael Polanyi) and his brother (Karl) are fascinating thinkers.

[_antishock8]

The con man just can't seem to grasp what "the scientific method" is. Amazing. Stunning.

The con man just can't seem to provide any empirical, testable, and supporting evidences for his claims. Color me shocked... Once again. Floored.

The con man wags a finger at Beastie for "sneering" when that seems to be all he's capable of doing in this forum. I'm positively nonplussed.

I'm sure most people here would be delighted if the con man would take his shennanigans to the Celestial forum, and discuss his evidences in a congenial and academic manner. I'm positive the respectful dialogue he just craves would be found there... If only he would actually post there.

Not holding my breath... That's for sure...

[_Trevor]

You know, antishock8, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.