And a VERY poorly thought out one at that. That's one of the main problems. . . weak analogies that muddle and obscure the arguments before they even start. Then valuable time getS wasted on crap that was untenable to begin with. And not to mention, that an argument for or against IS NOT equivalent to an
explanation.[/COLOR][/B]
OK. I'm gonna leave that alone.
Perhaps, but you haven't proven how. And I don't fall into that category either. I take the position that science either will or it won't. I thought that was clear, since I said that "Tyson might be right" on the point of humans
possibly being too "stupid" to figure it out. So I don't know where you're going with this. But I don't know how this precludes the scientific community from attempting to do so in the future . . .as it has done so many times in the past.
I wasn't necessarily addressing you. I never said it precludes science from doing what it does. All i'm saying is that it's a statement of faith. If that's ok with you.
There're no deeply impassioned, expletive laden statements dripping with any level of emotion . . . at least not written by me. But you might want to look at your own post. You could be said to exhibit frustration. But that can't be empirically determined.
And if you understood my posts, the evidence is there. And the bolded part indicates the primacy logic plays in making determinations about things . . .whether you fully trust them or not.[/COLOR][/B]
You're right. I did get a little frustrated there for a minute. Eh. And I was making a general statement. We've had a pretty civil convo so far.
What evidence is where?
And I disagree. Binary/bivalent logic is but one means of acquiring knowledge about "things". For the strict materialist, sure. And what are these "things" you're referring to??? (i'm sure you know why i'm asking ...). There are other forms of logic with practical real world applications. Look them up. For instance, Quantum Computation, you want a sexy example. Even in language/linguistics. The Bolivian language Aymara uses ternary as opposed to binary logic in it's grammatical syntax. So yeah, no primacy here.
Plus "rational" examination isn't only limited to empirical testing. One can even say Rationalism is antithetical to Empiricism. Perhaps the better phrase would be "pragmatically examine". yea. Pragmatism. The interface between Rationalism and Empiricism. That's about right.
Science is fundamentally based on knowledge, and Religion is based on faith, correct? Unless you're saying they're one and the same.
I don't know quite what you mean by this sweeping statement. Science works towards acquiring knowledge of natural phenomena within a formal system. So does religion. And no, this isn't a distortion of nomenclature or syntax or whatever. Saying science is based on knowledge is like saying a shovel is based on dirt. So is a hoe. (no pun intended).
And I've already made my argument, in several posts, of how there's also faith in science.
So I'm not getting the comparison here. If you believe that "science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive" and that it is unfair to compare them. Then why are you?
Not so fast there with the flip the script shit. I'm not comparing them at least not based on the same requirements that all the other atheists in this thread are. Notice where I said; "...just like science and every other institutional and form of human expression of knowledge." Did you miss that?
Science is held to a standard of scrutiny, verifiability or falsifiability that religion and metaphysics simply cannot and do not stand up to; in terms of rendering an accurate model of reality using an array of tools of discernment and understanding, i.e. direct observation, indirect observation, boolean logic, inductive and deductive reasoning, mathematical modeling, etc. All aimed at advancing our knowledge base.
And that word, KNOWLEDGE, has a very particular meaning, as you well know, especially when it comes to understanding things, distinguishing facts from non-fact.
Which logically can't be applied beyond an objective reality context.[/COLOR][/B]
You're basically stating my part of my argument here but in a backhanded way.
In ref. to the red highlighted above in order:
1) Anyone advocating this, religious, secular, layperson or scientist has got it all wrong. I'm actually shamed of scientists that do.
2) What does it mean?
3) I've already had this argument about the objective and subjective nature of reality. Not gonna start on that cycle again. So, pass.
So again, where's the meaningful (read: actionable utility being compared) equivalence here, and what is your aim with that?
Are you asking a rhetorical question? I never said science and religion were equivalent wrt utility. That's what's been implied by all the shit that's been posted in here. I'm just exposing the myth of the popular held beliefs about what science is ... or isn't.
More false comparisons. The premise of both perspectives couldn't be more different. Further, religion makes it's claims AS ABSOLUTES, period. Yes, the same absolutes you've been railing against all thread. While scientific understanding (perhaps not all within the community) evolves with new information.
Maybe I was railing against absolutes because of the absolute statemenst that were made earlier in the thread? 
And science does lay claims to absolutes. One could even argue that absolutes are it's very foundation.
So you tell me, what are axiomatic statements/systems? And when you get to the "self-evident" part, I want you to tell me how person A know that person B is conscious?
This effort to place science on parity with religion, simultaneously claiming they're incomparable . . . but here we are again. Because the MAJORITY of scientific advancements, as a matter of fact can and HAVE been tested. That's how we escaped antiquity.
JG, you're completely misreading me here. Things can be comparable in SOME respects and not the same in a contextual framework. Haven't I been saying all along that religion attends to a different kind of knowledge and human experience? What other language do I have to type this in? I'm just simply showing how popular arguments against religion aren't much different from similar arguments that can be made against science. That's all.
This doesn't infer absolute knowledge, but it is a distinguishing mark between science and OTHER institutions.
I couldn't agree more.
And String theory, not only is it unproven thus far, NO ONE from the scientific community has made such a claim, not even Kaku. And UNTIL it meets the standards of proof demanded by the scientific method, it won't be accepted. No problem. As a scientist, you know scientists pontificate and develop theories all the time.
Made what claim? That it's a theory??? I know what it's not though.
It's not "String Conjecture" or "String Hypothesis" or "String Really Cool Idea". And it's far from a mere pontification. Thousands of scientific peer reviewed papers have been published, hundreds of conferences, meeting and symposia, advanced astrophysics courses, books, Wikipedia pages, peoples entire scientific careers a whole damn enterprise. And not one. NOT ONE ounce of observable testable evidence. Not once. Ever. And, hypothetically, even if it were to be testable the super high energy required would STILL preclude lower energy particle physics testing AND predictions. Not to mention that passing the requirement of falsifiability would amount to saying "fuck Quantum Theory" And then everything is fucked all the way down to Newtonian physics by correspondence. So much for coherence. But it's still String THEORY. Because the right people at the right time hawked it.
I'm not saying that string theories are not interesting, just that the main use for which they are being sold, as a unified theory of particle physics and gravity ... FAIL. But then again the search for a Theory of Everything and a GUT is has been an academic as well as commercial enterprise. As far as i'm concerned it's more or less a religion.
You also know there're standards to verify the veracity of the claims made by said scientists. Exercises in experimentation, grounded by regimented inquiry, based cogent examination of information, are the cornerstones of scientific progress. Not subjective personal experience. Unless scientific peer review is a joke or an illusion.
No. String Theory is an illusion. Based on subjective personal experiences.
But you and no one else has answered my question: What OTHER method outside the scientific methodology of inquiry PRODUCES RESULTS? Because I'm not aware of any. And as I intimated previously, I don't see it as science vs. religion. I see it as science vs. ANYTHING, until someone shares something different than that, AND which produces the same or better results.
Oh. That's easy.
But i'll only answer your question when you answer mine.
Logical positivism is only one aspect of scientific inquiry.
The scientific method:
1) Ask a question about nature
2) Collect/record data (observation)
3) Inductive inference (experience)
4) Formulate conjecture/hypothesis (from 2 and 3)
5) Deduction (prediction from 4)
6) Experiment (test of 4)
7) Analyze (If 6 fails, go back to 4. If it passes go to 8)
8) Publish/communicate.
Logical positivism directly influences 1, 3, 4, 5. And indirectly biases 6 and 7. That's 6 out of 8 = 75%
Which, despite it's
theoretical limitations has PRODUCED a wealth of real understanding and has served to add to, not obliterate, our body of objective knowledge. So "Bullshit", hardly.
And practical limitations. Not saying science doesn't contribute towards knowledge but it's epistemologically limited to propositional knowledge/descriptive knowledge.
I'mtoo lazy to draw the right Venn diagram but this is fine:
And there should be other circles or spheres of beliefs that intersect the other two, or individually, or not.
Plus there are many ways of getting knowledge. There are many fields in which scientific method of acquiring knowledge doesn't apply. Like teleological questions, history, behavioral sciences and several social sciences where there's just subjective valuation of human relations. You wana chalk up all these forms of knowledge as worthless. Fine. I think they're very important to humanity. But hey, I guess it's your prerogative to accept ...no, wait ... rather, to appreciate this or not.
I will leave it at that.
If anything, Russell's paradox did science a favor. It revealed a limitation in classical logic (read: challenge, which is a good thing in my book), and DESTROYED GOD in one fell swoop, with his drawn conclusions on set theory. But had to draw upon that very same classical logic to arrive at the paradox!
I think I know what you're getting at here but I'm not sure. Please explain. Thanks.
So here I think you're being disingenuous and unfair. And an attempt at 'fairness' is a claim you made earlier, did you not? And again, I make no bones about the 'current' state of scientific limitations. Advancements beyond our current understandings demand that we put effort toward eliminating those boundaries. So far science has proven resilient in that regard. Serious scientists within that community know what they don't know, and at the point where limitations to previous impediments to empirical inquiry are overcome, scientists have consistently exhibited a desire to do so. Large Hadron Collider anyone, Hubble anyone?
OK, you're right. Perhaps "bullshit" was a strong word. My bad. But you have to admit that Logical Positivism has some major logical inconsistency issues (admittedly inherited from language). And concomitantly, the Natural Laws, which are expressible in a 'language' of mathematics and as a result inherit the mathematical baggage from set theory, geometry, calculus, functional analysis, statistics, etc.
Answer: True, you've already initialized the sentence with a value of 'false' in the sentences declaration. Boolean conditional logic. However the actual value is NULL. The sentence utilizes no comparative data, with any value for the inputs, and can therefore produce no outputs, resulting in a null value.
Yo, there's nothing wrong with the sentence man. The syntax and logical structure is sound.
The sentence requires no comparative data.
Input = Words/elements used to construct the sentence (logic statement)
Output = meaning of the sentence (truth value as a logical construct)
The grammar is also sound.
(ref: Categorical Grammar)
Like I said, language supervenes on logical systems. It's inevitable.
Any linguist in this thread that wana verify this? Be my guest.
JG
Thanks for your responses.
Fuck it, I'll do it again 
) and the simplest possible mathematical arithmetic. Even logical Positivism, the philosophical foundation of science, is bullshit. 
) and the simplest possible mathematical arithmetic. Even logical Positivism, the philosophical foundation of science, is bullshit. 
. We even force this prespective on ourselves when our environment doesnt do it for us ( politics, most sports, etc, ).
