DCP's puff pieces now include supernatural tall tales

[_RayAgostini]

In summary: "Kuhn, therefore Nephi."

So I take it you reject Kuhn's hypothesis?

[_Darth J]

Ray, I think you have made your point that you consider gullibility to be a virtue.

You're not really going to start evangelizing the UFO gospel again, are you?

[_Darth J]

In summary: "Kuhn, therefore Nephi."

So I take it you reject Kuhn's hypothesis?

No. I reject attempting to rely on Kuhn's name as evidence in support of arguing from ignorance for the existence of things like a Nephite civilization or space aliens being present on Earth.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, I think you have made your point that you consider gullibility to be a virtue.

You're not really going to start evangelizing the UFO gospel again, are you?

Knowing how open-minded you are, and how wise and all-knowing you are, I have to admit it would probably be a mistake. Having perfected the art of demonising anyone who disagrees with you, my time will probably be better spent elsewhere. However, I'm confident that many lurkers here will see just how phony and narrow-minded and dogmatic you really are.

[_RayAgostini]

...or space aliens being present on Earth.

And you know this, do you? I presume that in the last few thousand years, you've been omnipresent in every corner and nook and cranny of the globe, and you "know" we haven't been visited by extra-terrestrials?

I defer to your arrogance.

[_RayAgostini]

I think it's a generally-accepted truism that disputing someone's cherished beliefs is morally equivalent to killing the Jews.

That's where it eventually goes, if you're not careful:

Christian antisemitism.

But by all means, keep spreading the hatred and prejudice against Mormons. Make Joseph Smith look like an adulterer, con-man, and fraud, who did no good in the world.

Spread the love and tolerance.

[_ludwigm]

...or space aliens being present on Earth.

And you know this, do you? I presume that in the last few thousand years, you've been omnipresent in every corner and nook and cranny of the globe, and you "know" we haven't been visited by extra-terrestrials?

from Fermi paradox:

The Fermi paradox (Fermi's paradox or Fermi-paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.
...
...extraterrestrial hypothesis was jokingly(???) suggested in response to Fermi's paradox by his fellow physicist, Leó Szilárd^, that extraterrestrials "are already among us — but they call themselves Hungarians"...

[_EAllusion]

Just because what is reasonable to think tomorrow might have a different character than today this does not tell us what exactly will be more reasonable to think in the future. You can't predict how those changes will happen; if you could then the future would have already arrived. We can, however, say that the more removed from our current base of knowledge some idea is the more implausible it is for it to be worthwhile. We can say that things that are are unsupported today aren't reasonable to think. Appeal to the hypothetical possibility of future vindication is an argument from ignorance. Such an argument can be used for literally anything - hence why it is an argument to believe in anything - but has the downside of being fallacious in all cases.

[_Tarski]

So I take it you reject Kuhn's hypothesis?

The "Kuhn, therefore Nephi" quip encapsulates an absurd way of thinking and arguing. It would be absurd whether or not one accepts Kuhn's analysis.

But since you asked,....Khun's analysis of historical and sociological patterns in the development of science is insightful but the metaphysical part was overreaching as he himself seems to have realized later (though he claimed to have been misread).
Radical incomensurability of different paradigms ends up being an unsustainable idea.
A mild form of incomensurability is another matter. The usual example of considering Newtonian and Einsteinian notions of mass, energy and time actually makes the point:
While it is in some sense true that the meaning of these terms changed with the advent of relativity, it is not true that they cannot be compared with the corresponding pre-Einsteinian notions. In fact, a very good explanation can be given for how to make comparisons. More importantly scientists were still immersed in an ur-paradigm that allowed comparison and ultimately rational reasons for accepting Einstein. For example, scientists in the Newtonian tradition and those in the new Einsteinian paradigm could agree on things like whether or not an instrument gave a certain reading or not (they could and certainly did discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment). Also, the best ones were able to see how the other side would need to interpret the readings. In short, there is no radical incommensurability between the scientific paradigms that emerge as a part of scientific progress (and progress there is!).
Kuhn did not succesfully overturn the possibility of objectivity-especially since an unreasonable absolute objectivity was never on the table anyway.

[_mikwut]

EAllusion, DJ and Tarski:

Just because what is reasonable to think tomorrow might have a different character than today this does not tell us what exactly will be more reasonable to think in the future. You can't predict how those changes will happen; if you could then the future would have already arrived. We can, however, say that the more removed from our current base of knowledge some idea is the more implausible it is for it to be worthwhile. We can say that things that are are unsupported today aren't reasonable to think. Appeal to the hypothetical possibility of future vindication is an argument from ignorance. Such an argument can be used for literally anything - hence why it is an argument to believe in anything - but has the downside of being fallacious in all cases.

Of course this is true. But, I don't read Ray as saying what your refuting. He states the following in response to Darth J:

What you and others here have succeeded in doing is excluding from any serious consideration or conversation anyone you think is a "crank", because they don't hold your "factual" views.

I think Ray assumes that you all and his other interlocutors come from a skeptical materialism and a belief that current science is our only way to knowledge and that others are thereby excluded. But, if science will be much different in the future ((in)commensurable, realism-anti realism really aren't the issue here) then how secure is that very basis for exclusion of other uncouth possibilities? He even points out his own biography of remaining open to the mere possibility that Mormonism could in some sense still be right while presently rejecting that framework of belief. I think that is commendable that he doesn't lock a door of certainty. That locking of certainty seems to be what Ray is arguing against.

I don't think Ray is arguing from ignorance either. He provided anecdotal evidence that needs to be falsified before any kind of complete gullibility charge could be made against him.

just my thoughts, interesting conversation I didn't want to see die.

mikwut