|
Repertoire89
Cat
Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,084
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Just because you feel that the world is too conservative for your liking does not mean we all live in a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. A sanctioned religious leader has ultimate authority and autonomy to prescribe anything he wants. The U.S. may be conservative, even puritanical in some respects, but it is not a theocracy. At least according to my understanding of how that word is defined.
The US is a theocracy, a spades a spade by any name.
From prohibition to anti-abortion laws, our entire legal system is based on the abrahamic concept of "morality". What they say goes, barring bitter struggles across a span of years for weak compromises like the tentative legalization of marijuana in 2 states or the various and largely failed civil rights movements.
|
DrumsyStrings
Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 122
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: is science a kind of dogma? [Re: Repertoire89] 1
#19515879 - 02/03/14 01:20 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It's funny how offended all the science minded people immediately became. People that are for scientific inquiry should be all for DividedQuantum's ideas. The people that he is talking about are giving scientists and the scientific method a bad name with their ignorance of what science really is... a method of inquiry, not a worldview or belief system.
And is the US only a theocracy? Can't it fall under multiple labels? For example it claims to be a democracy yet you call it a theocracy and I would call it a corporatism and etc. So I agree that it holds a lot of beliefs from abrahamic religions but I don't know if it can be labeled a theocracy like other countries such as Iran are labeled.
-------------------- i like bongos. i like shpongle. i like mushrooms.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
|
Quote:
DrumsyStrings said: It's funny how offended all the science minded people immediately became. People that are for scientific inquiry should be all for DividedQuantum's ideas. The people that he is talking about are giving scientists and the scientific method a bad name with their ignorance of what science really is... a method of inquiry, not a worldview or belief system.
And is the US only a theocracy? Can't it fall under multiple labels? For example it claims to be a democracy yet you call it a theocracy and I would call it a corporatism and etc. So I agree that it holds a lot of beliefs from abrahamic religions but I don't know if it can be labeled a theocracy like other countries such as Iran are labeled.
Thank you DrumsyStrings for viewing the post(s) in an objective, rational light, and doing so so eloquently. My point is really very elegantly proven by how knee-jerk the reactions have been. (If you look closely in the OP, this point was already made).
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
The US is a theocracy, a spades a spade by any name.
From prohibition to anti-abortion laws, our entire legal system is based on the abrahamic concept of "morality". What they say goes, barring bitter struggles across a span of years for weak compromises like the tentative legalization of marijuana in 2 states or the various and largely failed civil rights movements.
I sympathize with your view, but think it is just plain wrong. There are many examples I can use to illustrate how the U.S. is not properly a theocracy. Conservative, even puritanical in some respects -- yes. But in no "theocracy" will you ever find gay marriage on the verge of being legalized federally, and already legal in several states. Say what you want about American culture in general; you need to check the definition of theocracy.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Repertoire89
Cat
Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,084
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
I sympathize with your view, but think it is just plain wrong. There are many examples I can use to illustrate how the U.S. is not properly a theocracy. Conservative, even puritanical in some respects -- yes. But in no "theocracy" will you ever find gay marriage on the verge of being legalized federally, and already legal in several states. Say what you want about American culture in general; you need to check the definition of theocracy.
In my opinion you're deluded as to the influence of christianity in this country, gay marriage has been an ongoing issue for half a century and then some. People struggling tooth and nail for basic rights is not a sign of progress.
|
DrumsyStrings
Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 122
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
|
You guys have a different definition of what truly constitutes a theocracy.
But wouldn't it be a sign of progress to have those basic rights when now they don't have them? Not saying that it is a good thing that people must fight for these simple rights but baby steps in the right direction are still steps.
-------------------- i like bongos. i like shpongle. i like mushrooms.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: not science but scientism a kind of dogma... confusion by reading quickly [Re: DividedQuantum]
#19516414 - 02/03/14 03:40 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
To sum up this pointless thread: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science is exaggerated.
I, for one, am glad we sorted out this mess and future generations will mark this day on their calendars for this milestone breakthrough in critical observation.
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
Re: not science but scientism a kind of dogma... confusion by reading quickly [Re: OrgoneConclusion] 2
#19516559 - 02/03/14 04:10 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: To sum up this pointless thread: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science is exaggerated.
I, for one, am glad we sorted out this mess and future generations will mark this day on their calendars for this milestone breakthrough in critical observation.
Dude...you really have a hard-on against me on this one.
Has nothing to do with trust, the actual methods of science, or exaggerated anything. Nothing whatever.
Where did you get this? WTF?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Repertoire89
Cat
Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,084
|
|
Quote:
DrumsyStrings said: You guys have a different definition of what truly constitutes a theocracy.
As far as I know no one has agreed with me.
Quote:
But wouldn't it be a sign of progress to have those basic rights when now they don't have them? Not saying that it is a good thing that people must fight for these simple rights but baby steps in the right direction are still steps.
Baby steps, squeezed out over decades under the lash of a theocracy.
|
White Beard
Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: not science but scientism a kind of dogma... confusion by reading quickly [Re: DividedQuantum]
#19516663 - 02/03/14 04:32 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: To sum up this pointless thread: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science is exaggerated.
I, for one, am glad we sorted out this mess and future generations will mark this day on their calendars for this milestone breakthrough in critical observation.
Dude...you really have a hard-on against me on this one.
Has nothing to do with trust, the actual methods of science, or exaggerated anything. Nothing whatever.
Where did you get this? WTF?
From page 2:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: "Definition of SCIENTISM 1 methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist 2 an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities) — sci·en·tis·tic"
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
Re: not science but scientism a kind of dogma... confusion by reading quickly [Re: White Beard]
#19516737 - 02/03/14 04:46 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: To sum up this pointless thread: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science is exaggerated.
I, for one, am glad we sorted out this mess and future generations will mark this day on their calendars for this milestone breakthrough in critical observation.
Dude...you really have a hard-on against me on this one.
Has nothing to do with trust, the actual methods of science, or exaggerated anything. Nothing whatever.
Where did you get this? WTF?
From page 2:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: "Definition of SCIENTISM 1 methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist 2 an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities) — sci·en·tis·tic"
Yes, and I made it clear when I posted the definition that to me this means, in the context of the OP, that one can assume the attitude of science and not be scientific at all. And then be dogmatic about it. If you would like to use the definition from the dictionary to comment on the OP, that's fine. I would appreciate it if people would comment thoughtfully on ideas in the OP, rather than just give me knee-jerk twenty word harangues. I do appreciate all of the thoughtful responses so far.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: not science but scientism a kind of dogma... confusion by reading quickly [Re: White Beard]
#19516743 - 02/03/14 04:48 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I have an anti-hard-on against DQ. This non-topic provides no stimulations whatsoever.
--------------------
|
White Beard
Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: not science but scientism a kind of dogma... confusion by reading quickly [Re: DividedQuantum]
#19516767 - 02/03/14 04:52 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
wut is the 'attitude of science?'
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
Re: not science but scientism a kind of dogma... confusion by reading quickly [Re: White Beard]
#19516790 - 02/03/14 04:57 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
from the aforeposted definition:
1 methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
Misused by people who never understood them in the first place.
I shouldn't need to say it but just in case, I am not referring to scientists themselves, or any of you. Of course.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
White Beard
Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: not science but scientism a kind of dogma... confusion by reading quickly [Re: DividedQuantum]
#19516822 - 02/03/14 05:02 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
ok, so if they adopt attitudes such as self-criticism, basing conclusions on empirical evidence, etc. etc., but don't actually practice them... have they really adopted these attitudes? Could this all be summed up as 'posers ain't the real deal'?
|
DrumsyStrings
Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 122
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
Quote:
DrumsyStrings said: You guys have a different definition of what truly constitutes a theocracy.
As far as I know no one has agreed with me.
Quote:
But wouldn't it be a sign of progress to have those basic rights when now they don't have them? Not saying that it is a good thing that people must fight for these simple rights but baby steps in the right direction are still steps.
Baby steps, squeezed out over decades under the lash of a theocracy.
Just pointing out that you won't agree on what a theocracy is because you have different qualifications for what defines a theocracy.
And they still are steps in the right direction. Yes in opposition of the corrupt people in power who want things to stay the way they are, but does that somehow make it not worth fighting for. It takes a fuck ton of baby steps to make great leaps in humanity. So you may as well take care of the little things that make a difference because it does add up and the more people with that kind of attitude the sooner change will happen.
-------------------- i like bongos. i like shpongle. i like mushrooms.
|
lessismore
Registered: 02/10/13
Posts: 6,268
|
|
if your brain is scientism and darwinism, you might need a new brain
saying biology isn't science isn't very humble it is like saying medicine isn't science too
keep an open mind, there will be breakthrough in any field, which might help new breakthroughs in other fields
chemistry breakthroughs may help physics physics breakthroughs may help chemistry math breakthroughs will help physics physics theory breakthroughs may help pure math field
another thing is, you assume that a 'hard' field is a good field why should physics be hard? why should quantum mechanics be hard?
that is a good question to ask oneself... why should it be hard to understand the nature we see? why not easy?
physics doesn't know it all yet, that is important to keep in mind it will never know it all, physics is just a model
quantum mechanics might be wrong, even though it makes great predictions nobody understands it, but we apply it everyday does that make it good?
a good model is a model that is beautiful and mathematically simple/organized newtonian physics, maxwell(electrodynamics),relativity, that was beautiful ... quantum mechanics and newer physics isn't that beautiful yet because it can only be applied to very simplified problems
btw... www.phys.org , great site with news for physics,math,chemistry,biology,medicine,psychology,neuroscience,... all is equally interesting to me, although I prefer a few fields
only math is always beautiful, physics is only beautiful sometimes IME linear algebra is pretty cool
it is a balance between cool math, not too hard to learn math, that you can keep learning/using all your life
QM is not beautiful very often, because it can rarely be applied to the real world unless you use a computer unsolveable integrals, unsolveable equations all the time it is surprising it hasn't been thrown out yet, must be because it makes good predictions
Edited by lessismore (02/03/14 05:36 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
Re: not science but scientism a kind of dogma... confusion by reading quickly [Re: White Beard]
#19517049 - 02/03/14 05:38 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said: ok, so if they adopt attitudes such as self-criticism, basing conclusions on empirical evidence, etc. etc., but don't actually practice them... have they really adopted these attitudes? Could this all be summed up as 'posers ain't the real deal'?
If you want to, be my guest.
My central point was this: The atheistic, materialistic worldview, which is so fashionable in the secular West, is every bit as dogmatic and subjective as any other.
Many people think being an atheist and a materialist, and assuming they know something about science, makes them superior, so a lot of people who don't know what they're talking about believe it. And it basically transmogrifies into a dogma. I got criticized for assuming this had taken hold more broadly than it has, but in my defense I had the academic and so-called intellectual circles of America in mind, in which these points are obviously applicable.
You can boil it down to whatever you want. I don't see the OP as lacking in economy.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
|
Re: is scientism a kind of dogma? [Re: lessismore]
#19517093 - 02/03/14 05:48 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mio said: if your brain is scientism and darwinism, you might need a new brain
What's so wrong with Darwinism?
Quote:
saying biology isn't science isn't very humble it is like saying medicine isn't science too
In my opinion -- and the reason for my comment -- biochemistry is a hard science. The chemistry aspect of biology is a hard science. Biology itself is pretty primitive. It is the study of life. As yet, biology can't even tell us what makes living things 'alive.' It's still early for biology.
And modern medicine is about as advanced as a thirteenth century sledge-hammer.
Quote:
keep an open mind, there will be breakthrough in any field, which might help new breakthroughs in other fields
chemistry breakthroughs may help physics physics breakthroughs may help chemistry math breakthroughs will help physics physics theory breakthroughs may help pure math field
another thing is, you assume that a 'hard' field is a good field why should physics be hard? why should quantum mechanics be hard? that is a good question to ask oneself... why should it be hard to understand the nature we see? why not easy?
No, the term is "hard science" because physics and chemistry are all verifiable experimentally, and describable precisely mathematically. No other science, even biology, can make this claim. It has nothing to do with difficulty. Hard vs. soft.
Quote:
physics doesn't know it all yet, that is important to keep in mind it will never know it all, physics is just a model
quantum mechanics might be wrong, even though it makes great predictions nobody understands it, but we apply it everyday does that make it good?
Quantum mechanics is wonderful, and I think in the next ten years we will find an even more fundamental theory that is even more beautiful.
Quote:
a good model is a model that is beautiful and mathematically simple/organized newtonian physics, maxwell(electrodynamics),relativity, that was beautiful ... quantum mechanics and newer physics isn't that beautiful yet because it can only be applied to very simplified problems
What about quantum computation?
Quote:
btw... www.phys.org , great site with news for physics,math,chemistry,biology,medicine,psychology,neuroscience,... all is equally interesting to me, although I prefer a few fields
only math is always beautiful, physics is only beautiful sometimes IME linear algebra is pretty cool
it is a balance between cool math, not too hard to learn math, that you can keep learning/using all your life
QM is not beautiful very often, because it can rarely be applied to the real world unless you use a computer unsolveable integrals, unsolveable equations all the time it is surprising it hasn't been thrown out yet, must be because it makes good predictions
QED is the most accurate (to sixteen decimal places) theory in the history of human civilization. But there's the proton radius problem...
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Repertoire89
Cat
Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,084
|
|
Quote:
DrumsyStrings said:
Just pointing out that you won't agree on what a theocracy is because you have different qualifications for what defines a theocracy.
And they still are steps in the right direction. Yes in opposition of the corrupt people in power who want things to stay the way they are, but does that somehow make it not worth fighting for. It takes a fuck ton of baby steps to make great leaps in humanity. So you may as well take care of the little things that make a difference because it does add up and the more people with that kind of attitude the sooner change will happen.
It does add up and is worth the effort, this society is corrupt beyond reason and I'd rather that violent force were used to spur real change. The issue with that unfortunately (at least in my mind), is that the problem lies with the masses not the elite. Tear down the assholes on top, and the assholes on the bottom will replace them.
Its still worth the effort to make things better, and I still support violent force, but no society will ever be perfect.
I've got nothing really left to say on the theocracy thing, just reiterating at this point.
|
lessismore
Registered: 02/10/13
Posts: 6,268
|
|
"As yet, biology can't even tell us what makes living things 'alive.' It's still early for biology."
interesting, but Darwinism surely can in your opinion?
there is no theory that can make us understand consciousness, Darwinism is one "model"
if we understood consciousness we would understand quantum mechanics likely claiming to know consciousness would be bogus
I find biology fascinating sometimes... every cell in our body can talk with each other every cell is a very complex machine perfect machines is a good word... try studying cell biology mind boggling..
there is a city in every cell, and a universe within our bodies
then the interesting thing is... how do each cell know what to do? is it all decentralized? or is it all controlled from somewhere ? the brain i.e.?
the thoughts must have something to say on our body? or nothing to say on our body?
each cell being decentralized I can't imagine... each cell in our bodies talk together often (btw I never studied biology... but I think biology is interesting still)
biology might not make the same predictions as physics, but it is still transforming our lives perhaps as much as physics... dunno
biology, chemistry and engineering change the world much, even though physicists might not like those fields plastic everywhere... what would the world be without plastic?
Edited by lessismore (02/03/14 06:32 PM)
|
|