defensive ploys, religion, science

[_Morley]

Not all science that is widely accepted and built upon isn't always based off of a correct method. sometimes those finding aren't ever challenged. Scientists don't always go back to square one.

Example?

[_beefcalf]

Not all science that is widely accepted and built upon isn't always based off of a correct method. sometimes those finding aren't ever challenged. Scientists don't always go back to square one.

Yes, examples please.

[_Simon Belmont]

But that's not really the case w/r/t the Church, is it? Because the "available evidence" is pretty sorely lacking. Having "faith" that your wife is real versus having "faith" that the Lamanites and Nephites once inhabited huge cities in Latin America is quite different, no?

I disagree. The available personal evidence is great, and without faith, I don't think I'd have that personal evidence.

Scientists used to classify Pluto as a planet, now they don't.

Meanwhile, astrologists have always considered Pluto to be the ruling planet of Scorpio (I mean they have ever since its existence was made known to them by, um, scientists) and associate it with the god of the underworld, wealth, and alchemy. And they continue to do so.

Simon, is this kind of consistency a point in astrology's favor?

No, and simply reversing my point is not making a valid argument in this case. I do not maintain that just because something is consistent, it is true. That has never been and is not now my position.

But it is curious that you know so much about astrology.

Simon,

I appeciate the reasonable tone of your reply, and I apologise for the 'insane' jab in my last post.

That was nice of you, thanks.

This honestly feels like a tautology to me - or at the very least 'flirting' with being one. (I'd appreciate it if any of our resident philosophy experts could confirm or deny...)

You ask the question: "How do I know I am having thoughts?"
My response is: "It requires thought to ask ones-self such a question. Therefore, you have thoughts"...!

Perhaps it is tautology, but do you see how we get to the infinite regression by asking these questions? Example:

How do I know I am thinking?
I am thinking about thinking, therefore I know I am thinking
But how do I know that I am thinking about thinking?
I am thinking about thinking about thinking...

My point here is how you define existence. If you define it as self-awareness only then sure, I am certain that I exist. And if it helps us move forward in the conversation, then we can use that definition of existence.

Interesting that in some cases you describe your state of knowledge as literally zero, and in other cases it's just 'incredibly unbalanced' (which I read as 'incredibly small').

For instance, immediately after making the above statement, you then say this:

It is hard to fathom exactly how much we do not know. I could compare us to grains of sand on the beach of the universe, but that isn't small enough. I could compare us to quarks in the universe, but that isn't small enough either. In an infinite universe like many scientists believe we are a part of, there is no measurement to how small and naïve we really are.

i.e. you really believe that none of us know literally anything.

That wasn't meant to be literal. We do know a lot of things that in our capacity to know. I am just saying that the sum of all human knowledge is very very small when compared to the sum of all that we don't know.

Is the reason you deny that we (i.e. humankind, generally) have 'measured consiousness' is because 'we don't know much'?

That's part of it. It's definitely not the sole reason.

Well, I can 'deny' there is a supernatural realm (as commonly defined by religious people, new age-ers etc.) without KNOWING it doesn't exist.

That's certainly only as far as I'd go.

It's good to keep an open mind like that, Ren. I am not sure about things like ghosts and hauntings and angels and all of that, but I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that human science has advanced to a point where we know these things don't exist.

Can you find any 'serious thinkers' (Mormon or otherwise) who would deny they can know they exist...?!

I don't know, Ren. That's a tough question on two fronts: 1) our definition of existence, and 2) our definition of "serious thinker" :)

[_Themis]

I disagree. The available personal evidence is great, and without faith, I don't think I'd have that personal evidence.

So do so many others. Unfortunately the evidence is in conflict with each other.

No, and simply reversing my point is not making a valid argument in this case. I do not maintain that just because something is consistent, it is true. That has never been and is not now my position.

It is true though that it is consistent, so we should not ignore it.

It is hard to fathom exactly how much we do not know. I could compare us to grains of sand on the beach of the universe, but that isn't small enough. I could compare us to quarks in the universe, but that isn't small enough either. In an infinite universe like many scientists believe we are a part of, there is no measurement to how small and naïve we really are.

It should not be used as you are doing, as an excuse to ignore what we do know or understand.

[_hatersinmyward]

Here is your research you idiot.

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html


Gw pharmaceuticals is going to start observing tagged Kangaroo test subjects to develop new drugs. Kangaroos are just below apes in relation to humans and they reach maturity in a short time. Their social structure is closer to a humans while compared to rats. Rats don't have a social status that resembles that of a human. Apes tend to go nuts after being locked in a cage causing stress problems which cause problems with the current testing method. Apes will still be used differently in the new method.

American Pharmaceutical Companies have the most foul ups and are opposed to the new research and development method.

[_Morley]

Here is your research you idiot.

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html


Gw pharmaceuticals is going to start observing tagged Kangaroo test subjects to develop new drugs. Kangaroos are just below apes in relation to humans and they reach maturity in a short time. Their social structure is closer to a humans while compared to rats. Rats don't have a social status that resembles that of a human. Apes tend to go nuts after being locked in a cage causing stress problems which cause problems with the current testing method. Apes will still be used differently in the new method.

American Pharmaceutical Companies have the most foul ups and are opposed to the new research and development method.

Your link only leads to someone's rant. No research there. Nothing about pharmaceuticals or social structure or kangaroos. Nor does it address your earlier post:

Not all science that is widely accepted and built upon isn't always based off of a correct method. sometimes those finding aren't ever challenged. Scientists don't always go back to square one.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

[_Doctor Scratch]

But that's not really the case w/r/t the Church, is it? Because the "available evidence" is pretty sorely lacking. Having "faith" that your wife is real versus having "faith" that the Lamanites and Nephites once inhabited huge cities in Latin America is quite different, no?

I disagree. The available personal evidence is great, and without faith, I don't think I'd have that personal evidence.

That's a weird qualifier you've attached to your assertion, Simon. What does it mean? How do you define "personal evidence"?

[_hatersinmyward]

Are you asking me to state my reasoning for why an internal combustion engine works?

Is this article acceptable considering your mainstream biased view on philosophy and life?

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm


Just because something is accepted. then spun off of by people who think the evidence adds up, or adds up in their favor can still be wrong.

There was some show called "the planets" dated 1999, on this morning. These scientists devised a computer program which didn't explain the creation of Uranus and Neptune but explained the creation of all the other planets in theory. The computer program was backed by all these "scholarly physicists" the program explained some things but could not explain all things so the computer program or (Science) is flawed. The head of the University of Colorado's Science Department Admitted to this mistake.

If bunch of people were jumping off of a bridge You and Becalf would undoubtedly be in line to jump. Of course you'd be in back of the line considering robots follow their human counterparts.

[_Simon Belmont]

That's a weird qualifier you've attached to your assertion, Simon. What does it mean? How do you define "personal evidence"?

I thought you were at least minimally involved in a thread I started some months back where I asked members about different types of truths. Personal truth was one of them. Scientific truth, historical truth were others.

[_Doctor Scratch]

That's a weird qualifier you've attached to your assertion, Simon. What does it mean? How do you define "personal evidence"?

I thought you were at least minimally involved in a thread I started some months back where I asked members about different types of truths. Personal truth was one of them. Scientific truth, historical truth were others.

That's what I thought. I said that the kinds of evidence you rely on for your faith are vastly different from the kinds of "truths" you depend upon in most other aspects of your life. The fact is that you give the Church a free pass, and that you don't apply the same standards of evidence to it that you would to most other things.