General Discussion > The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion
Abolish blasphemy laws
Publius Valerius:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 07:02 ---Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works. It can be shown, though, that one can't verify that inductive logic works.
--- End quote ---
About "Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works."
What the fuck? Really? Where do you have this (I never heared this, and who had teached you this***)? Secondly I have even Popper in my bookshelf.... so I dont mind if you qoute directly even in german for your prove. So that your stuff dont comes out tine air.
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 07:02 ---It's exactly this overconfidential attitude of people in regards to what science can do that is quite typical of people who're so opposed to religion.
--- End quote ---
Ehm I havent seen this "overconfidential attitude". But anyway. I bring it down.
- Publius likes sciences, and needs it for his work and live (*Publius rises fist fist to reality that he needs food and water to survive*).
- Publius likes religion, and dont needs it for his work and live (*Publius rises fist fist to reality that he does not needs transcendence to survive*).
Does it mean nobody those need relgion? Of course not. This would be a inductive miss-conclusion. And (this time in this thread), nobody is gone this route. The same miss-conclusion would be also exist if you would now think, that "Publius likes sciences and relgion in the same way." I like them (for different reasons), but for me those two are two circles which only mildly hit/overlap each-other. Secondly: Luckily, my field of study was in macro-economics and political science/npö, so fields where you have 95% math anyway and almost no critical intercept point with religion.
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 07:02 ---Just look at this thread and count the people that take the stance that we'd all be better off if science alone would be determining what is to be held true and that people who go 'against' (which oftentimes is really just not accepting it as giving ontologically absolute answers) it are silly, naive, stupid or simply ignorant...
--- End quote ---
Publius counts through the thread. Sees only himself, and even that only mildly. Mithra, you forget Lyn is a constructivist, as well as the others. :lol: The only mildly positivistic person here is me, and even I dont see myself as a radical positivist (not as a supporter of scientism). Because... I dont think science needs to answer transcendence questions. SO EASY IS THIS.
Ehm another question for you Mithra (before this thread goes totally off topic :D):
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
________
*** Not that Iam hating. But this is so deep in "Wait-What land", that I have to ask. :lol:
P.S. before you do a Mithra again, as you done in the slavery topic. Please reread again. It helps. Example: Nobody said that scientism should be a substitution for religion. It is again a discussion only in your head, so please dont do a Mithra and answer to things nobody mention.
Nicoletta Mithra:
Popper doesn't go the route to show that inductive logic can't be verified, his argument is another as he claims that science is in no need of induction (and works exclusively deductively, which is quite out of touch with reality).
Anyhow:
--- Quote from: Vickers, John, "The Problem of Induction", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) ---How is induction to be justified? There are in fact several questions here, corresponding to different modes of justification. One very simple mode is to take Hume's dilemma as a challenge, to justify (enumerative) induction one should show that it leads to true or probable conclusions from true premises. It is safe to say that in the absence of further assumptions this problem is and should be insoluble.
--- End quote ---
(emphasis added by me)
The interesting point is that there is a logically symmetric problem with deduction, as pointed out e.g. by Susan Haack in her article "The Justification of Deduction" (Mind New Series, Vol. 85, No. 337 (Jan., 1976), pp. 112-119). So Popper isn't getting around the problem there either.
As to who is in favour of science as the priviledged source of truth: Look at what Des and Silas wrote for example. Reconsider your counting.
Also, stop this babble about 'doing a Mithra' as if that'd be something to denote something bad, or I'll report you.
Publius Valerius:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 08:22 ---Popper doesn't go the route to show that inductive logic can't be verified, his argument is another as he claims that science is in no need of induction (and works exclusively deductively, which is quite out of touch with reality).
Anyhow:
--- Quote from: Vickers, John, "The Problem of Induction", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) ---How is induction to be justified? There are in fact several questions here, corresponding to different modes of justification. One very simple mode is to take Hume's dilemma as a challenge, to justify (enumerative) induction one should show that it leads to true or probable conclusions from true premises. It is safe to say that in the absence of further assumptions this problem is and should be insoluble.
--- End quote ---
(emphasis added by me)
The interesting point is that there is a logically symmetric problem with deduction, as pointed out e.g. by Susan Haack in her article "The Justification of Deduction" (Mind New Series, Vol. 85, No. 337 (Jan., 1976), pp. 112-119). So Popper isn't getting around the problem there either.
--- End quote ---
Is this a anti-point for anything I mention? As for your comment "out of touch with reality"... It is your opinion... and you a free to voice your opinion. As for me I dont see him out of touch. I actually think, if you cant deductive explain our inductive findings you should not publish it. I think that way we would have less shitty and ideological political science studies/books. Or science books overall. I could give you hunderds of examples, where people defend their inductive miss-conclussion just it fits their Ideology. For example "the three white power stooges", which most likely has inductive findings of people which fits their ideology. But those it mean all of dark skin color people are this way? Or have less tools/choices/braincells/etc... No, of course not. Thats why I think, it isnt out of touch. Quiet the opposite, it helps people stay in touch. IN OTHER WORDS. If you dont cant explain deductive your inductive findings you should keep your mouth close (I know something that will never happen. :P As Books out of the left field get selled more... and you as author/prof can then visit John Stewart and co...) Something which I mention already two times here (to lazy to search for a link. But Samuel P. Huntington is a prime example for this. But I go off topic.
My questions mark was more into the direction of "Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works."
Ehm another question for you Mithra (before this thread goes totally off topic :D):
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
Publius Valerius:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 08:22 ---Also, stop this babble about 'doing a Mithra' as if that'd be something to denote something bad, or I'll report you.
--- End quote ---
Report if you like. But when you dont read a full argument and just the two words which fits your Ideology, I will call out on you, as well as when you do a straw men argument. As for why I call it a Mithra? It is because I always see you doing this. Sadly I dont know why, It is something what only you can explain. But if you like to report me you are free to do so. And I will sit out my well deserved ban as I had done with my comment towards Gotti (to lazy to search the catacombs). ;)
By the way. If the second thing is your problem (the name calling), maybe you should then stop useing terms like "tonygism" or "tonygish", because both have the same brain father. :D
P.S. Dont forget to answer my questions.
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
Desiderya:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 07:02 ---All that science says is that given the methodological decisions made, the axioms of science (e.g.: inductive logic works), the theories that are presupposed and the data one did gather empirically, that earth is older than 5000 years. It's not saying that Earth is in some absolute sense older than that. Scientific results are not at all verifiable (something that Popper already showed and even worse, since then it has been shown that scientific knowledge isn't even strictly falsifiable), because they depend on the axiomatic basis of Science. For the results (as in scientific theories) to be verifiable, the axioms need to be verifiable. Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works. It can be shown, though, that one can't verify that inductive logic works.
It's exactly this overconfidential attitude of people in regards to what science can do that is quite typical of people who're so opposed to religion.
As to the followers of Scientism: I didn't say they are fanatics. I say they are trying to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. One doesn't need to be a fanatic for that, one simply needs to want to be in charge for whatever reason (and that includes superficially benign reasons).
Just look at this thread and count the people that take the stance that we'd all be better off if science alone would be determining what is to be held true and that people who go 'against' (which oftentimes is really just not accepting it as giving ontologically absolute answers) it are silly, naive, stupid or simply ignorant...
--- End quote ---
Correct. You can't claim absolute truth. And I don't think it's been claimed, because absolute truth is for mental masturbation and evangelism. Objective truth might be a better term. Natural sciences make observations and attempt to model them (through mathematics, for example) in a way that allows to use these model to explain and predict the reality. These are, by definition, not precise in the most absolute sense.
However, they are solid enough to not just make predictions, but to also apply them with utmost precision. Despite being grounded in empirical data which is always prone to errors and interpretation, it can't be that faulty that we somehow get errors of the scale of 10^5. So, these principles are by all means quite well understood, or at least described.
You are correct that whenever we look into the past we can not outrule the possibility that something we do not understand happened that produces exactly the results we get while the same principles applied today are yielding perfect results, indicating a deity that makes everything(!), not just one aspect, look like he did nothing, just to screw with us. So that is indeed a possibility.
I can't tell you why there's gravity. I can explain how to model it and what you need to get it, though. I can't tell you why the Earth's exactly at this place either.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version