Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Scepticism
    #1077440 -

one has to be sceptical on scepticism, or one can fall for the scientific dogma.

remember: logic is a system. a human construct as much as religion is (don't tell them, I told you this)

there are things that are true that are unprovable

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1077448 -


there are things that are true that are unprovable

according to swami belief, this statement is not true, why? you have no proof  :tongue: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1077520 -

My own philosophical tautology has always been:" you can't doubt the existence of doubt, cauz by doing so you serve only to bring  the very same concept into existence by doubting" did that make anys sense? :grin: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1077534 -

I agree with you.

Sometimes people let the system of logic control their perceptions, instead of realizing that they are the ones who should use that system as a tool, not the other way around.  :tongue:   


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Edited by Adamist (11/22/02 05:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1077543 -

this statement is not true, why? you have no proof
something which cannot be proven is not necessarily wrong, there is a proof for that

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1077562 -

I think you're right. That's EXACTLY what Swami would say (my apologies if I'm wrong Swami). But it's such a great point. How can you possibly know that "there are things that are true that are unprovable"??? Yes, that statement might be true, but how can you KNOW that? You can't, and stating it as fact is just as silly as me saying that I know for a fact that anyone who has done drugs is going to hell. You can't prove me wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm right, does it?


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1077565 -

"something which cannot be proven is not necessarily wrong, there is a proof for that"

I agree with the first part of the statement!  :laugh:

But how can anyone possibly prove it?  :confused:


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Edited by GoBlue! (11/22/02 06:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1077586 -

yes, that makes perfect sence.

Although, I am not talking about doubting the doubt here, but doubting the "official doubters", who often are just scientific dogmatists.

"Scepticism" comes from the Greek word "Skepsis", which is the thought process. Being "sceptical" means roughly to think about something (not just accept it).

Now, "thinking" does not necessarily mean you have to use the symbolic, scientific, logical thinking. There are other thinking modes, too (maybe we have not even experienced some of them yet).

Logic is a very good system, especially for the materialistic point of view. One should not restrict himself to this thinking though. There are areas that this tool is simply inappropriate, and will provide you with erroneous results. Push logic to the limits and will get paradoxes. Or just try using logic to understand some forms of art, it is like trying to use a calculator to prepare dinner.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1077598 -

But how can anyone possibly prove it?
Well, Goedel proved that in any axiomatic system (such as logic), there are things that are true, that cannot be proven, e.g. something is either true or false. There is no proof for that, although logic is based on this being true.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Adamist]
    #1077620 -

instead of realizing that they are the ones who should use that system as a tool, not the other way around
well, it seems you cannot use something without being used by it. For example, when you use drugs to have fun, drugs also use you (you are forced to have fun in the way the drug wants). Abusing logic will lead you being abused by logic, end up machine-like, mechanical, losing your humanness. In other words, losing your soul.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1077653 -

"there are things that are true, that cannot be proven, e.g. something is either true or false"

Are you sure that's "true"?  How do you know?  :grin:

Just having fun... reply not required. 


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1077725 -

Isnt scientific dogmatism an oxymoron? I thought science, by definition was anti-dogmatic?
If this is true, then anyone who practices dogmatism is not practicing science.

I think that science and logic can be thought of as very usefull fictions.

I also think that they are our best bets in understanding the world around us next to direct perception.



--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1077741 -

Or just try using logic to understand some forms of art, it is like trying to use a calculator to prepare dinner.

-I like that.

When I take tests, I always think that the answer could be right and it could be wrong, but what should I choose- True or False? I always fail tests.

  :frown:


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: David_Scape]
    #1077748 -

To me, it's all about finding the balance between logic and intuition. I don't claim to have found this balance; it's an on-going process... Science as a system is efficient, but like ANY system, the people using it can distort it, many times unknowingly.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Adamist]
    #1077770 -

It is in the eye of the beholder.

........like most things.  :tongue: 


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Murex]
    #1077794 -

I feel the same way adamist

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Adamist]
    #1077994 -

The many $100,000,000 Las Vegas hotels were built by people using intuition and hunches. So much for that theory.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1078129 -

Yeah I can't wait to get my consciousness balanced and lateralized so I can build hotels in Las Vegas...  :tongue: 


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1079471 -

"there are things that are true that are unprovable"

Perhaps, but you can never know these things for sure, believing in them would be stupid. There are many more things that are false that are impossible to prove.

For most of the paranormal, mystical, crazy things that people discuss, there are far more plausible explanations that one can come up with logically.

Why do people choose the more bizarre explanation? Because they like that one better. It's more interesting, and they want it to be true.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1079474 -

The many $100,000,000 Las Vegas hotels were built by people using intuition and hunches.
pretty good example for where logic is essential, now if you could give us some examples where logic does not fit...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1079487 -

"Or just try using logic to understand some forms of art, it is like trying to use a calculator to prepare dinner. "

The human mind is designed in a logical fashion. This doesn't mean that it won't produce things that seem illogical. I'm sure the art that you're talking about is stimulating various emotions and ideas through images, sounds, tastes, smells, whatever. These connections already exist in our minds, we see the art, and we don't have to use logic to make the connections. Just because logic as a system of thought isn't being used, doesn't mean that what is happening is illogical.

Let's say you had a very elaborate calculator. It took into account one's past, what they were fed as a child, where they grew up, their likes and dislikes, and it had various tastes programmed into it, it would likely spit out an excellent recipe.

"Push logic to the limits and will get paradoxes."

Please explain this further.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1079492 -

you can never know these things for sure, believing in them would be stupid
if you are so afraid to be stupid, you can always sit tight in your comfortable (proovable) couch. you hold tight, let the idiots explore

there are far more plausible explanations that one can come up with logically
i'm sure there are. just not for everything

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1079560 -

The human mind is designed in a logical fashion.
designed? by whom?

Let's say you had a very elaborate calculator. It took into account one's past, what they were fed as a child, where they grew up, their likes and dislikes, and it had various tastes programmed into it, it would likely spit out an excellent recipe.
I mean a simple arithmetic calculator  :smile: This was supposed to be taken metaphorically

"Push logic to the limits and will get paradoxes."
There are paradoxes in the scientific world. I suspect some of them may be because the tool being used to understand them is inappropriate. This does not mean that there are no "logical" explanations, but at least that the current "logic" being used is kind of flawed or incomplete. It has to do with the symbolic, concrete approach of concepts.   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1079571 -

"there are things that are true, that cannot be proven, e.g. something is either true or false"
Are you sure that's "true"? How do you know?
I personally don't, but Goedel proved it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1079707 -

Just because logic as a system of thought isn't being used, doesn't mean that what is happening is illogical
this kind of what I am trying to say, with your words

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1079814 -

And Goedel 'proved' it using logic. Sounds kinda circular to me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1079816 -

"if you are so afraid to be stupid, you can always sit tight in your comfortable (proovable) couch. you hold tight, let the idiots explore"

I'm all for exploring. Here's the difference between science and religion:

Science: based on well documented observations, come to what is the most logical conclusion.

Religion: based on emotions and whimsy, come up with an idea, then selectively find evidence to back it up.

The second model is how most people come up with various forms of alternative medicine, theories about aliens, esp, etc... They start with a conclusion, and work backwards.

Lots of artists and scientists use the first method of thinking. It doesn't hinder you creativity, it just prevents you from believing in things that are likely false. The problem with most of these whimsical ideas is that a lot of them are false. The kind of evidence that people use to prove them doesn't really have any basis, and can be used to "prove" anything. That's exactly what my pseudoscience post is about.

Did you read this?:
http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

"i'm sure there are. just not for everything"

Okay, give me some examples.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1079825 -

Everything follows logic. Even if you don't know the intricacies, it is still logical.

If something goes against logic as we understand it, this does not mean that our logic is flawed, or that it is beyond our understanding. Maybe it does, but in most cases, this is certainly not true. It would be pretty stupid to just to that conclusion without first subjecting the theory to well laid out scientific analysis. Something that many of these people avoid doing, or when they do fail these tests, as many inevitably do, they brush off the results using ad-hoc hypothesis.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1079827 -

hmmm, can logic be right and be correct that it's wrong? Does logic have a self-destruct button?
:confused: 


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1081277 -

I am all for science. I love the sense of wonderment science inspires.

Yes, beliefs can be dangerous. Yes, people are being deceived,
but what causes people fall into deception?

"Hardcore" scientists have been practicing bad science,
they have scared people away from science:

"look, you are nothing special, I can make someone like you"
"look, there is nothing unexplained in love"
"look, you are the puppets of your genes", etc

You have to leave the human element breathe.

These BELIEFS are a lot more dangerous than having faith that there is something ineffable about you, no logic can describe, no human system can accommodate.

The very basis of scientific beliefs have to be challenged, for they have bring us to the verge of destruction. The mechanistic point of view of nature is simply a belief. Such beliefs are very well guarded by self proclaimed "skeptics", for they serve the current exploitation of nature, and fulfil personal ambitions.


The second model is how most people come up with various forms of alternative medicine, theories about aliens, esp, etc... They start with a conclusion, and work backwards."
There is nothing wrong with letting your intuition (or empirical evidence) point the way. Then there is the work to back it up. There are many wonderful theories that are expecting to be validated, but that is only if given the chance.

Okay, give me some examples.
I'll let you guess.

Edited by raytrace (11/24/02 07:18 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1081427 -

Lots of artists and scientists use the first method of thinking. It doesn't hinder you creativity, it just prevents you from believing in things that are likely false.

Mmm...how exactly does an artist use logical thinking? Nothing is "right" or "wrong" in art. Creativity and Logic are in different hemispheres of the brain.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1081571 -

"These BELIEFS are a lot more dangerous than having faith that there is something ineffable about you, no logic can describe, no human system can accommodate."

Excellent point! If I had enough posts i'd rate you.
The subjective experience is why we should RESPECT sentient life! It's the special somthing that we all have in common.
I dont think it should get to our heads though; who knows? Sombody may come up with an answer one day that might blow are minds!
:cool:
 


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: David_Scape]
    #1081739 -

The subjective experience is why we should RESPECT sentient life!

Dear Aretha,

How we define what life is sentient is totally subjective.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1081762 -

"look, you are nothing special, I can make someone like you"
"look, there is nothing unexplained in love"
"look, you are the puppets of your genes", etc

No scientist is saying these things. None of those things have anything to do with science. No scientist is claiming to be able to create humans from scratch.

Many might argue that love is really just a biological function. While this might take the magic out of it if you let it, and you may not WANT it to be true, but it's a perfectly valid idea. I think this may be true, and I still think love is a wonderful thing. Why do you have to be confused by something to enjoy it?

Genes are the blueprint for a person. I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that last

"You have to leave the human element breathe."

What does that even mean?

"There is nothing wrong with letting your intuition (or empirical evidence) point the way."

No, nothing wrong with letting them point you in the right direction, but you need to do a few tests before you start claiming it might work, and then you need to a full blown analysis before you can start claiming it DOES work.

"Okay, give me some examples.
I'll let you guess."

Guess? I think you just can't come up with any.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1081781 -

You're claiming that those things are beliefs. A claim like that just proves that you don't even know what science is.

The very basis of science is that there are no beliefs. None of the three things that you listed are believed by ANY scientist. Science is a system of documenting observations and attempting to implement this data. When there is enough evidence that a theory is incorrect, then that theory is abandoned. This generally isn't the case for systems based on beliefs.

No scientist claims to be able to explain love, for instance, because no scientist has a full understanding of the human brain.

Just because you WANT the universe to be a magical place with gods and spirits controlling forces you cannot comprehend doesn't mean that it IS this way.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1081792 -

Who's Aretha? I did a search and all i found was Aretha franklin. I know nothing about this woman except that she is "The Queen of Soul who reigns supreme with a heavenly voice and terrestrial passion".

"How we define what life is sentient is totally subjective."

After looking up sentient to be sure i was even using the word correctly...  :confused:
Subjective experience is synonymous with sentience so maybe i didnt have to use it. But I think your saying that there is no way of knowing absolutley that all of us are sentient and your right. I should have put "The subjective experience is why I RESPECT sentient life!"
 


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: David_Scape]
    #1081817 -

sidebar: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" - Aretha's #1 hit.

What I meant was that we have NO WAY of knowing which life forms are sentient and which ones aren't. I believe that the popular criterion is by which life forms interact with humans.

Creatures such as ants don't "acknowledge" humans, so we tend to deem them as not sentient.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1081993 -

"R-E-S-P-E-C-T" - Aretha's #1 hit.

Not to be confused with "Rescue me" by Fontella Bass..........although many have fallen into this trap :grin: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1082079 -

Everything follows logic.
says who?

No scientist is saying these things.
Daniel Dennet, Marvin Minsky, Ray Kurtzwell, Richard Dawkins?

I think you just can't come up with any
Of course I can, you.


"You have to leave the human element breathe."
What does that even mean?
It is fairly clear by now, that there is something binary behind you. Human-like structure does not mean there is a human inside. Try to read me not with only your analytical brain, it?s boring talking with a Prolog program. If you fail, I suggest you cut yourself, check if there is blood running inside you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1082088 -

The many $100,000,000 Las Vegas hotels were built by people using intuition and hunches.
pretty good example for where logic is essential, now if you could give us some examples where logic does not fit...


silence... as expected...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1082111 -

In reply to:
pretty good example for where logic is essential, now if you could give us some examples where logic does not fit...

silence... as expected...



Believing in logic is illogical. How do you prove that logic "works" as a tool? By using logical deductions. There's this idea that all one's beliefs can be traced to more basic beliefs, back and back to the foundation. These foundational beliefs just "are." The belief in causality is a cornerstone of scientific research. How do we know causality is? The belief in the scientific method is a belief, after all.
-m


--------------------
(the above was deciphered from phi (~1.62) using an advanced alphanumeric conversion algorhythm and should not be perceived as meaningful.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1082116 -

now if you could give us some examples where logic does not fit...

I know this was not directed at me, but I would like to say that art, or music in particular..for me, requires no logic and oftentimes logic can intefere with the process.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1082129 -

"Daniel Dennet, Marvin Minsky, Ray Kurtzwell, Richard Dawkins?"

I think the problem here, is that you're not interpreting them very well. You aren't understanding what they're saying. None of these scientists are saying the things that you've listed. They may be doing research to try and find evidence that would prove conciousness is a mathematical system, but they aren't claiming to have any answers yet. That's how science works, you don't claim to know anything until it's proven, and even then, you've got to continue to operate under the assumption that everything you know could be wrong. Perhaps you could link me to some information that says otherwise?

"You have to leave the human element breathe."
The reason I didn't understand what you meant here is that it doesn't follow english syntax. You aren't communicating any solid ideas with that sentance, it does not follow correct grammar.
"Of course I can, you."
Same thing here. Are you trying to say, "Of course I can, can't you?"
I apologize if english isn't your first language, but some of the things you're saying are difficult to understand.



"It is fairly clear by now, that there is something binary behind you. Human-like structure does not mean there is a human inside. Try to read me not with only your analytical brain, it?s boring talking with a Prolog program. If you fail, I suggest you cut yourself, check if there is blood running inside you."

I have no problems whatsoever with my creative side. You have to be able to turn it on and off though. When trying to communicate an idea to someone, you can't use poetry, that's for communicating images and emotions. When you're trying to efficiently communicate an idea, poetry will not work.

You're probably sitting there thinking I'm the left-brained analytical type. I'm really not. I love nonsense, disorder, and chaos. I love the way my brain spits out non-sequitors, makes bizarre connections, and associates strange images with different emotions and themes.

This has nothing to do with what the universe actually is. My brain was not designed to understand the universe. I don't think that what my brain and my conciousness do has anything to do with an understanding of the universe. Brains have been known to deceive their owners. Different brains seem to have conflicting information. One brain tells it's owner that there are 5 gods, another brain tells it's owner that there are none. They can't both be correct. The only information that is consistant is that which comes from outside of the brain.

You don't have to lose appreciation of beauty in order to understand it.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1082142 -

Don't you get it? Your brain IS the universe. The universe is Order and Chaos existing simultaneously in harmony.. your brain is Order and Chaos on seperate sides, functioning as if they don't even know each other. Make them work together, harmonize.. and you will understand the universe.


--------------------

Edited by Shroomism (11/24/02 04:20 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Shroomism]
    #1082264 -


INTRESTING!!!! Does the information we get from the percieved universe actually come from an "unknown source"? A source which science is trying to understand? or does it all come from our brains?

WAIT A MINUTE! if i agree i have a brain, then i have no choice but to accept that there is a universe outside of me!

So if i want to prove that there is a brain-- er a universe..er... :confused: :confused:I can't get anywhere without assumptions. Im I doing somthing wrong?

The only conclusion i can come to with any certainty is "i am percieving" or "I exist".   


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: David_Scape]
    #1082273 -

I can only think to reply with, "As above, So below"

The microcosm of a macrocosm.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Shroomism]
    #1082476 -

"Don't you get it? Your brain IS the universe. The universe is Order and Chaos existing simultaneously in harmony.. your brain is Order and Chaos on seperate sides, functioning as if they don't even know each other. Make them work together, harmonize.. and you will understand the universe. "

The preceeding sounds pretty, but really isn't based on anything.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1082989 -

I must say I have some new found respect for you.  I didn't realize that you were as astute scientifically as you are.  :wink:

However, that is beside the point.  I do not know what your background is but you are conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Do you really think that scientific opinion is absolute?  That certain theories cannot be completely disgarded?

What, in your mind, is science? 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: machineelf368]
    #1083004 -

How do you prove that logic "works" as a tool?
By asking this question using a computer on the Internet.

The belief in the scientific method is a belief, after all.
Caution: your ignorance is showing. It is a methodology based on trial and error.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1083233 -

Caution: your ignorance is showing.

This "be nice" policy seems to be putting a bit of a strain on you swami...could you at least give it a try and quit with the insults?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: machineelf368]
    #1083245 -

Believing in logic is illogical. How do you prove that logic "works" as a tool? By using logical deductions. There's this idea that all one's beliefs can be traced to more basic beliefs, back and back to the foundation. These foundational beliefs just "are." The belief in causality is a cornerstone of scientific research. How do we know causality is? The belief in the scientific method is a belief, after all.

Are you trying to use logic to prove that it is illogical to use logic???  Is that logical?  :wink: 


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1083274 -

"Do you really think that scientific opinion is absolute? That certain theories cannot be completely disgarded?"

I'm not really sure what you meant here.

"Dictionary.com

No entry found for disgarded."
:confused: :confused:

Discarded, maybe? Because I said the exact opposite. I said that any theory could potentially be wrong, and any good scientist knows this. Theories are NOT absolute. That's what I'm saying. There is no belief in science.

It seems like you read the exact opposite of what I wrote.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1083311 -

Ignorance means not knowing the facts. If you do not know the capital of Ubekistan and I say that you are ignorant in that regard, how is that an insult?

The fact that I have to explain the meaning of this word and how to use it, perhaps you too are --------.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1083361 -

You beat it me to it.

Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the word however:

"SYNONYMS: ignorant, uneducated, untaught, unlearned, untutored, unlettered, illiterate. These adjectives mean lacking in knowledge or education. Ignorant can refer to a person's low level of knowledge in general or to the person's lack of information about or awareness of a specific fact or subject: was ignorant of the hidden dangers. Uneducated, untaught, unlearned, and untutored imply lack of schooling: uneducated youngsters; untaught people whose verbal skills are grossly deficient; an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issues; an untutored genius. Unlettered describes one deficient in book learning: exhibited contempt for his unlettered colleagues. Illiterate most often refers to the inability to meet an established minimum level of achievement in reading and writing: developed special tutorials to assist the illiterate sector of society."

This means that there are other connotations. Many people assume you mean the later.  But that is probably just their subjective interpretation kicking in.

I am ignorant about a lot of things as are you.  I am ignorant as to what you are wearing right now, etc.

Thanks for the explanantion and thanks for trying to help. :smile:

Cheers, 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1083383 -

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Yes, I meant discarded.  Kinda like "preceeding", ya know? :wink:

Yes, people say there is no dogma in science but the opposite is actually the case.  I wasn't referring to what you said I was referring to the way things actually are.  The reason dogma exists is because as human beings we get comfortable with our knowledge.  Watch any new theory or revision of a popular theory get an entry into a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  Howls of protestation will go up as many get in line to prove why the revision cannot be so.  THAT is dogma.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1083710 -

I apologize if english isn't your first language, but some of the things you're saying are difficult to understand.
I apologize for my English. Yes, English is not my first language.

I understand that ?You have to leave the human element breathe." is wrong. I didn?t notice at the time. But do you get ANY meaning out of it, even though syntactically incorrect, even if you find it stupid? A computer wouldn't have a clue.

By ?Of course I can, you.?, I mean that an example is? you?


When trying to communicate an idea to someone, you can't use poetry, that's for communicating images and emotions. When you're trying to efficiently communicate an idea, poetry will not work.
Poetry can communicate the ideas that science cannot. Efficiency is not an issue.


This has nothing to do with what the universe actually is. My brain was not designed to understand the universe. I don't think that what my brain and my conciousness do has anything to do with an understanding of the universe.
Again: designed by whom?
How do you know your brain was not designed to understand the universe?


You don't have to lose appreciation of beauty in order to understand it.
Well yes, but describing a phenomenon does not mean there is UNDERSTANDING, or a rational EXPLANATION.


Science is half the truth. Mathematical correlations mean nothing on their own. Restricting your world view to the scientific, is like putting ear-plugs on before going to a concert.


If you accept that science can explain everything on you, then it is possible to make a copy of you on a disk. You are claiming that the hair at the back of the neck of your digital self, will stand up when listening to certain music. (I am making the wild assumption here, that certain music does have that effect on you).



*** Note: Please, tell me when I say something wieyrd, my English can be consfusying. ***

Edited by raytrace (11/25/02 05:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1083712 -

Thank you Mr. Mushrooms. This has saved me time trying to explain. There IS dogma in science.

Edited by raytrace (11/25/02 04:36 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1083717 -

I mean that an example is? you?

I know that you will enquire on this, so:

Everything is based on assumptions. You sort of have to have a frame of reference for everything. If you trace back any scientific conclusion that is accepted today, you will realise that it is based on an assumption. We accept these assumptions to be true, without a logical proof. Your very existence does not have a proof. It cannot be explained logically.

Try to apply the theory of relativity not only on the material plane. It was never meant to be restricted on the material.

If there is one thing that cannot be denied, I would say that this is that you BELIEVE you exist. If you could stop believing that, and still exist, then we can discuss it. It seems to me faith is deeper than logic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Shroomism]
    #1083720 -

oftentimes logic can intefere with the process
logic can interfere with the process of love, too

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1083726 -

*** I hope it is clear that I do not mean to say one should not use logic. I mean to say one has to acknowledge the irrational in our nature. ***

Edited by raytrace (11/25/02 04:55 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1084154 -

I can see how clear thinking could get "in the way of" emotionalism.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1084341 -

I can see how misleading your statement may be.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1084342 -

I can see how misleading your statement may be.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1084378 -

And Goedel 'proved' it using logic. Sounds kinda circular to me.

Not any more circular than using a bottle of beer to open a bottle of beer. Goedel basically showed that the number of true statements is higher than the number of correct proofs. Not circular at all.

Now go and try opening a bottle of beer with the same bottle of beer. Then we talk about the validity of using logic to determine whom it is who is using logic.  :wink: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Nomad]
    #1084477 -

When it comes to Goedel and such, Nomad is the man to ask. He knows what he is talking about. (+ it seems to me he's got a pretty balanced worldview)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Nomad]
    #1084538 -

Well done.

Yes, I knew that but I was shamming.  You caught me.  Very Good!

:grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1085143 -

Yes, I knew that but I was shamming. You caught me. Very Good!

LOL  :laugh:

Well... yeah... i'm not sure. Wouldn't a simple truth table be a way to prove every possible statement in logic right or wrong?

 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1085216 -

When it comes to Goedel and such, Nomad is the man to ask. He knows what he is talking about.

Thanks  :blush:. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as I pretend to be. But, yeah, I've done some excessive pondering on these things (too much, probably).

You raised some excellent points in this thread. I guess the problem with science is that it's basically a "What if" - approach. Science says: "Forget for one moment that you are human. Imagine you were an omnipresent God, not looking with eyes, but percieving creation as it is. Watch each atom sitting in it's piece of matter, watch the dance of electrons, watch the patterns rise and fall... what would you do with that?"

In "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which is an awesome book, it's pointed out that, while no human has ever seen both the front side and the back side of a motorcycle at the same time, and no human ever will, it's a scientific fact that the back side exists even while you are looking at the front side. There's your omnipresent godlike observer in a nutshell. And the problem with that, the ultimate paradox of science, is mind. Science deals exclusively with matter and, therefore, cannot explain mind. But everything we percieve is mind. With our mind we watch an experiment, with our mind we draw the conclusions, build a theory, make up laws... with our mind do we create a new experiment for testing an idea in our mind. With our mind we experience the fruit of a successful scientific discovery.

When science deals with mind, we get one hell of a contradicting mess. Physics says that the bottle of beer in front of me is reflecting rays of light into my eyes. But brain science says that, upon getting the input from somewhere, my brain unfolds space to put the image of a bottle in front of me. How can that be? Constructivism made a head start, explained life, the universe, and everything else, and then, with one final stroke of ink, proved it's own nonexistance - because, if every reality is constructed, then constructivism is, too. I'm convinced that trying to solve such issues with logic is the shortest way to insanity - every premise will lead to it's own contradiction, leaving nothing but smoke in the wind. "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" is about just that, the true story of a guy who tried to hunt down the ghost of rationality and found nothing but madness. One notices that those who use logic to the extreme possess a rather strong "common sense" - they just won't question certain things. Rationalism largely consists of lines that you do not cross.That is good, because common sense saves you from insanity. But that is bad, too, because it leaves you vulnerable to the dead end of consensus trance.


(+ it seems to me he's got a pretty balanced worldview)

That depends... does flipping from one extreme to the other count as balancing?
   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Nomad]
    #1088213 -

You'll do well here. I am surprised we haven't run into each other before if you have been a member longer than I have.

There was a time when Pirsig was like a God to me. I have a collection of ZAMM including copies from other countries. I really liked Lila too. He has a website where people interested in his ideas can post.

Oddly enough though I feel in love with Pirsig it was Aristotle that saved me. And the man who Pirsig poked fun at in his book. Bob's problems were two fold. The first one was that he was legitimately insane, and probably is today. And the second is that he misread Aristotle.

The Great Books program was a great program and Robert Hutchins was a great man.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1090300 -

I think I'll start a thread about the book once I've read it for the fifth time. It's so amazing... it cuts directly into the frontline between philosophy and spirituality, and that seems to be a major issue here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Nomad]
    #1090600 -

Great! I can hardly wait for you to start it.

There is another book worth reading if you are into ZAMM. It's called Guidebook to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Inside the cover I wrote these words:

This book seems like yet another attempt to buy psychological contentment at the price of reason or rationality.


I also have ZAMM in cd-rom so I can listen to it while I am in nature. A profound experience to be sure.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Nomad]
    #1091493 -

Thanks for your comments :smile:

I intend to read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". I have heard much about it.

Forget for one moment that you are human
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to discuss this... I will return on this sometime.


does flipping from one extreme to the other count as balancing?
you know... balance is unattainable without flexibility :wink:
     

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1091501 -

check out the new issue of Newsweek. The front page reads: "The Science of Alternative Medicine". Oh, the pharmaceutical companies will be sooo upset...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1092704 -

I'm sure they're just shitting themselves.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1093672 -

no, not themselves, just everyone else

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1093843 -

Huh?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1093851 -

Alternative medicine is this:

Medicine that has not been proven effective. This means, some of it likely does work, but the majority probably does not. After it is tested, then we'll see.

It can be dangerous though. There are people who believed so blindly in an alternative practice that they refuse standard treatment, and then often die. They'll go in for a few Energy-Vibe Happy Thought sessions or whatever, and come out feeling wonderful, and think that they're getting better. People don't understand the power of placebo. They convince themselves that they're healed, and often suffer pretty nasty consequences.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1094323 -

Medicine that has not been proven effective.
...and when it is proven, it stops being alternative. All the proven medicines you know... were once... alternative...  :smile: 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1094785 -

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with that, but most alternative medicine is bullshit.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* For the sceptics...
( 1 2 3 all )		 Chronic7 3,857 59 03/29/08 08:48 PM
by allisthesame
* the boundaries of scepticism mr crisper 850 12 12/08/03 08:03 AM
by Alan Stone
* The Unprovable Nature of Faith and Belief
( 1 2 all )		 DoctorJ 3,091 33 08/11/03 07:13 AM
by fireworks_god
* Maya, space-time and scepticism. Alan Stone 2,377 19 10/20/03 11:19 AM
by Anonymous
* My sceptical belief in "god" deafpanda 1,148 17 01/07/05 04:05 PM
by uriahchase
* Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... lucid 783 10 12/11/03 09:41 PM
by Anonymous
* 2012: Skeptics vs Believers
( 1 2 all )		 Titus_Pullo 1,069 23 02/05/10 08:09 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* The Buddha and Becker on the problem.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 Icelander 6,729 164 02/03/10 04:45 PM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,214 topic views. 1 members, 408 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.058 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.