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

On 3/11/2017 10:21 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> 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.
>
>

I don't think that is what he meant. It is Science Vs Religion and you 
take one side or the other. So in a way the belief in Science becomes a 
matter of faith.So you denigrate the other side because that is what 
people do.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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.
>
>

It's certainly not entirely scientific.

Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
"beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> It's certainly not entirely scientific.
>
> Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
> "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
>
>

I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:

1. maximize well-being
2. minimize suffering
3. ???

These are things social animals value, either consciously or by 
instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about 
stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty 
common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 3/11/2017 10:26 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>> It's certainly not entirely scientific.
>>
>> Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
>> "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
>>
>>
>
> I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
>
> 1. maximize well-being
> 2. minimize suffering
> 3. ???
>
> These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
> instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
> stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
> common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
>
>
> Mike


OTOH, humans aren't the only animals to experience psychoses.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 11-3-2017 23:33, Stephen wrote:

> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>

Oops.  :-)


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message