 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>> On 9-3-2017 21:37, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>> Is your faith not shaken in "scientific" polling?
>>>
>>
>> I am foremost concerned these days by the way in which science and
>> scientific results are simply dismissed as irrelevant, lies, if not
>> 'evil', by any person without the training/knowledge and for reasons of
>> his/her own, those being political and/or religious.
>
> You don't seem interested in the "scientific" polling question. Let's skip it.
What "scientific" polling question? What am I missing?
> Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
> shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of induction. Let us
> accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
> best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
>
I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
"absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
say, in my opinion.
> Do you believe in science yourself? Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
> television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?
>
Foe me the answers are: Sometimes, very seldom, sometimes, never, seldom
and never. Not because of "Science" but because they don't interest me.
> Science can only advise us to "Do THIS to achieve THAT." The value of THAT is a
> meta-ethical proposition. We can (possibly) debate the comparative merits of
> such propositions, but we'll need more sophisticated tools than "science QED" to
> do so.
>
> As for explicit denial of "science", everyone I've ever met is an implicit
> deny-er of some sort.
>
I will agree that. Most people I know are or have been in denial of
something at one time or another. Myself included. It is part of the
human condition. It helps us get through life. (Only to regret it later,
if we can.)
> "Believers" implicitly deny the existence of God by acting differently in public
> than in private.
>
> "Non-believers" implicitly deny a deterministic universe by offering (or even
> accepting) value propositions.
>
> The person who says "I don't /believe/ in the Big Bang"--as in "Evidence of the
> Big Bang does not inform my behaviors or moral intuitions"--is arguably offering
> a more rigorous description of a belief we all share.
>
> My only point is that "science" is a poor, lazy argument for the /value/ of
> fetal stem cells (or any other kind of organ harvesting).
>
>
Yes, I agree with that. I'll make no judgement on using "Science" as a
justification for a belief system. I lost my faith in "Science" when my
chemistry teacher showed us an experiment to electrolyse water into
hydrogen and oxygen. He lied. He electrolysed dilute sulphuric acid into
hydrogen and oxygen. H2O is such a good insulator it takes between 65 ~
70 million volts to pass a current through a meter of the liquid.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>
> > Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
> > shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of induction. Let us
> > accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
> > best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
> >
> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
> say, in my opinion.
"Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our knowledge."
I think we're on the same page here.
I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one of the
above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any arguments
regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results" and "what is
presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was going with
the "scientific" polling, but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
is a stronger point besides.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2017 6:49 PM, Shay wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
>>> shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of induction. Let us
>>> accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
>>> best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
>>>
>> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
>> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
>> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
>> say, in my opinion.
>
> "Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our knowledge."
> I think we're on the same page here.
>
Yes I think we are. I didn't realise that until the end of your post.
> I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one of the
> above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
>
Again I didn't get that until I was writing my reply.
> Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any arguments
> regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results" and "what is
> presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was going with
> the "scientific" polling,
True, there is too much to go into. Unless you don't mind TL;DR ;)
But Scientists are human too and can worry about where the next project
is coming from or they might be fundamentalists. Or as you say/imply
they might have no morals.
Personally I prefer engineering. 'Cause if you can't hit it with a
hammer or a shifting spanner (monkey wrench). It won't stand up. ;)
> but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
> is a stronger point besides.
>
Well I misunderstood your post to start off with and English is my
native language. (Sae te speak. :) )
We will wait until the morning to see.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-3-2017 20:45, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/10/2017 6:49 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
>>>> shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of
>>>> induction. Let us
>>>> accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
>>>> best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
>>>>
>>> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
>>> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
>>> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
>>> say, in my opinion.
>>
>> "Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our
>> knowledge."
>> I think we're on the same page here.
>>
>
> Yes I think we are. I didn't realise that until the end of your post.
>
>> I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one
>> of the
>> above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
>>
>
> Again I didn't get that until I was writing my reply.
>
>
>> Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any
>> arguments
>> regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results"
>> and "what is
>> presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was
>> going with
>> the "scientific" polling,
>
> True, there is too much to go into. Unless you don't mind TL;DR ;)
> But Scientists are human too and can worry about where the next project
> is coming from or they might be fundamentalists. Or as you say/imply
> they might have no morals.
> Personally I prefer engineering. 'Cause if you can't hit it with a
> hammer or a shifting spanner (monkey wrench). It won't stand up. ;)
>
>
>> but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
>> is a stronger point besides.
>>
>
> Well I misunderstood your post to start off with and English is my
> native language. (Sae te speak. :) )
> We will wait until the morning to see.
>
I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion
is bypassing me so to speak.
Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking
about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant.
Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to
say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people
think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not.
In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree
with what Stephen said earlier.
About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that
could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models
based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-)
I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life
Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"
The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 7:56 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion
> is bypassing me so to speak.
>
> Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking
> about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant.
> Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to
> say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people
> think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not.
> In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree
> with what Stephen said earlier.
>
Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.
> About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that
> could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models
> based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-)
> I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life
>
If it has any meaning. I think it is modern American usage.
> Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
> television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"
>
> The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)
But I bet you eat old cheese. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-3-2017 9:52, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:56 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion
>> is bypassing me so to speak.
>>
>> Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking
>> about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant.
>> Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to
>> say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people
>> think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not.
>> In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree
>> with what Stephen said earlier.
>>
> Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
> understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
> reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
> loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.
:-/ We are living in sad times...
>
>> About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that
>> could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models
>> based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-)
>> I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life
>>
> If it has any meaning. I think it is modern American usage.
In that case I am at a loss about its meaning.
>
>> Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
>> television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"
>>
>> The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)
>
> But I bet you eat old cheese. ;-)
Aahh... You got me there! Although it is not my favourite anymore I confess.
And I drink tea, coffee, wine, and appreciate a dram of that Scottish
beverage you probably have heard rumours about. That about resumes my
usual liquid intakes I guess. ;-)
[no beer. No sir. I don't /really/ like that.]
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
> Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
> understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
> reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
> loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.
Damn right it's become a religion, replete with the kind of insane zealots who
would curse me as a "round-Earth deny-er" for drawing my house in Autocad.
The science-ian won't use "good" or "evil", but he's quick to use "right" and
"wrong" or "smart" and "dumb" or "enlightened" and "primitive" or "progressive"
and "regressive" to mean the same thing.
Sure, he starts with facts (facts like "200 of 200 dogs observed consuming
gasoline were dead within 6 days." But he then, like any other zealot, abandons
proper reason for "reasonability." His true faith is in his own ("reasonable")
intuitions.
Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
some type of religion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
> some type of religion.
>
I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
beneficial results."
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
>> following
>> some type of religion.
>>
>
> I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
> beneficial results."
>
>
> Mike
Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 7:44 PM, Shay wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>
>> Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
>> understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
>> reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
>> loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.
>
> Damn right it's become a religion, replete with the kind of insane zealots who
> would curse me as a "round-Earth deny-er" for drawing my house in Autocad.
>
> The science-ian won't use "good" or "evil", but he's quick to use "right" and
> "wrong" or "smart" and "dumb" or "enlightened" and "primitive" or "progressive"
> and "regressive" to mean the same thing.
>
> Sure, he starts with facts (facts like "200 of 200 dogs observed consuming
> gasoline were dead within 6 days." But he then, like any other zealot, abandons
> proper reason for "reasonability." His true faith is in his own ("reasonable")
> intuitions.
>
> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
> some type of religion.
>
Harken to the words of STEPHEN. {Glory be to his Toenails and tremble*
at his utterances.}
It is all power over others. There seems to be an inbuilt desire for
people to believe in something bigger and better than themselves, for
divers reasons. So these people set themselves up as gods or prophets or
priests or vegans and use the gullible to enrich themselves. I don’t
think there is any getting away from it. As it was in the beginning so
it shall be for evermore.
Unfortunately Europe exported a lot of its malcontents to America and
there they prospered.
In my experience, there are so many good and decent people in America
who are drowned out by the vocal fruit loops that the world thinks that
is America.
Now I am stuck for what to say. I don’t really want to rant, maybe just
cry a little.
So keep your pecker up Shay and fight the good fight. It may come out
all right in the end.
* I said tremble not laugh. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
