Summer means no religion or politics?

[Misj']

I did read that list. I'm interested in specific examples. So research in medicine isn't scientific? And how does one research art? Or is art research? Please explain.

Quantum Physics has shown that the observer always influences the observed...hence objectivity and reproducibility at a quantum level is by definition impossible. Both of these are requirements to be part of 'science'.

An example from medicine (I'm not talking about Medical Biology here!) are anti-depressives. No one knows exactly (or even less than exactly) how they work. Even more so: they work only 3-5% better than placebos under the same condition. The fact that it works (slightly better) is enough for medicine to use it (because the purpose of medicine is to heal people). It is however not 'enough' for medical biology (the science) which tries to understand the how (since the purpose of biology is to understand the mechanism of life).

As mentioned in my previous post: one of the purposes of art is to reflect (and thus better understand) society. The l'art pour l'art-movement has removed this purposes, thus technically removing art as a field of research.

My idea of science is what I quoted from Wikipedia.

Many scientists don't consider wikipedia the world's ultimate source of knowledge (actually, many scientists don't trust wikipedia).

I don't see how my conclusions are incorrect just because you think science is something else.

Not because I think...because it is. Two different things. As I said: it's about definitions (me knowing science is B) not opinions/perceptions (you believing science is A). And while B is a part of A', not all properties of B apply to A'. You however consider all properties of B to apply to A as well (because A=B), causing the majority of your reasoning (related to A (which in reality is either A' or B)) to be based on an incorrect basis, which will eventually lead to an incorrect result.

Applying the scientific method/scientific research leads to obtained knowledge.

As do quantum mechanical research, philosophical research, theological research, mathematical research...because all fields of research lead to obtaining knowledge (when applied correctly).

What I count as obtained knowledge is e.g. the Theory of Gravity. We know what gravity will do to bodies of mass beyond reasonable doubt.
You'll notice that there isn't a Fairy Theory though.

But you also consider the Bing Bang theory to be 'obtained knowledge' even though we have no objective (direct) measurement/observation of the event. And unless someone is able to build a time-machine we will never be able to directly measure it. That doesn't mean it's not research or 'obtained knowledge' (let alone useless), it is however not part of science.

Yes, there is a difference between method and purpose. Science is the usage of certain methods. Research has a purpose and is trying to reach this goal using methods. So research is a part of science, the one that is trying to create tools or medicine..

if research uses science to reach (certain) goals (not all, by the way; other goals are achieved by other fields of research), then by definition science is a part of research, because research is broader than science. It simply can't be the other way around, because 'obtaining knowledge' is by definition broader than 'a method to obtain a certain type of knowledge'.

A definition cannot be incorrect, because it merely the act of assigning a label to something.

Of course it can be incorrect...because if the wrong label is assigned to the wrong thing (like for example when you say that a bottle has four legs and miauws) then the definition is wrong. Moreover, if the definition is used as a basis in reasoning - as it is in this case - then the incorrect definition (that is: an incorrect description) leads to incorrect reasoning.

The Wikipedia definition reflects the meaning or meanings that are generally intended when people use the word "science".

However, similar to KhrisMUC's example concerning 'theory', this discussion does not concern the 'meaning as it reflects the generally intended use by people', but the actual use in the scientific world. Since claims are made about what science or scientists say, a definition that contradicts the way true scientists handle science (although they may not always describe/define it as such) is useless in this discussion.

Just because you don't think it's the most useful definition (because it covers two, in your opinion, separate concepts or whatever) doesn't make it incorrect.

Unless of course if it does cover two separate (though related) concepts. Because in that case the definition is simply wrong because then the thing people talk about is not equal to the thing they belief they talk about.

[Khris]

I don't believe this.
Well, who found out that antidepressants only work 3-5% better than placebos? Wasn't that somebody who did scientific research?

Now, when I talk about science in my posts, and I have the Wikipedia definition (wd) in mind, and everybody else except you does, too, and I make statements about wd-science, and there's a discussion about wd-science and still everybody uses the word science in the wd-sense, and people discuss wd-science vs religion and so on, why can't you simply accept that "error" or GTFO?
Why do you have to keep on blabbing about how science is something else and thus the arguments are flawed, when obviously nobody agrees or cares and it's crystal clear that by science we mean wd-science?

If you overhear people talk about the weather, do you interrupt them constantly to tell them the sky isn't blue but cerulean?
Seriously.


And how does the fact(?) that many scientists don't trust wp relate in any way to me quoting the wd to clarify what I mean by science?

Believe me, I know that science has its limits. But how is my reasoning incorrect? Did you deem it incorrect only as long as you thought by science I meant something else? Is it still incorrect now that even you know which definiton of science I was using?
Please show me a statement of mine about (wd) science that you deem incorrect.


How do philosophical research or theological research lead to obtained knowledge? Could you name an example (that isn't historical knowledge)?


We know that some big boom went down way in the past. We can measure the radiation and pinpoint the center. People created the big bang hypothesis, tested it, confirmed it by many independent measurements and now we have a big bang theory. How is that not science?

This discussion does not concern the 'meaning as it reflects the generally intended use by people', but the actual use in the scientific world.

Says who? You? What the hell? Several people have already clarified "which science" they are talking about. Accept it and move on or GTFO.

[Snarky]

Quantum Physics has shown that the observer always influences the observed...hence objectivity and reproducibility at a quantum level is by definition impossible. Both of these are requirements to be part of 'science'.

That's a pretty informal statement of quantum physics, and I suspect that what you think it means isn't what the actual finding is. Anyway, your syllogism is not valid, and science in general has ways to deal with the fact that perfect observation and objectivity is impossible and not all events or phenomena can be reproduced. It is certainly quite possible to conduct repeatable empirical experiments on quantum phenomena.

An example from medicine (I'm not talking about Medical Biology here!) are anti-depressives. No one knows exactly (or even less than exactly) how they work. Even more so: they work only 3-5% better than placebos under the same condition. The fact that it works (slightly better) is enough for medicine to use it (because the purpose of medicine is to heal people). It is however not 'enough' for medical biology (the science) which tries to understand the how (since the purpose of biology is to understand the mechanism of life).

But a statistical effect of 3-5% is enough to say, scientifically, that anti-depressives "work" (unlike, say, prayer on behalf of depressed people). It would be interesting to learn the mechanism by which they work, but knowing that they work is itself a scientific finding that tells us something important. (For example, it suggests very strongly that our mental states are, in some sense, reflections of biological processes in our body.)

Many scientists don't consider wikipedia the world's ultimate source of knowledge (actually, many scientists don't trust wikipedia).

Individual scientists may personally consider any number of things. So what? To find out what a word means (which is to say, how people use it), it is useful to consult dictionaries and encyclopedias. Wikipedia may not be the best encyclopedia, but in this case it provides a good answer. Besides, KrishMUC was only saying that the quote provided a good statement of his idea of what science is.

Not because I think...because it is. Two different things. As I said: it's about definitions (me knowing science is B) not opinions/perceptions (you believing science is A). And while B is a part of A', not all properties of B apply to A'. You however consider all properties of B to apply to A as well (because A=B), causing the majority of your reasoning (related to A) to be based on an incorrect basis, which will eventually lead to an incorrect result.

You don't know the "right" definition of science any more than KrishMUC does. Because there isn't one. A word means what people use it to mean. I think KrishMUC's definition more closely matches actual usage, though.

Other definitions might be more useful, but even a label that conflates several different things (which all labels do: that's the whole point of generalization) does not make it impossible to reason about the different components. Most people understand that a single term can contain multiple concepts, and that what's true of some of those concepts may not apply to all of them.

As do quantum mechanical research, philosophical research, theological research, mathematical research...because all fields of research lead to obtaining knowledge (when applied correctly).

Depends on what you mean by "knowledge". Art, philosophy and theology may lead to new insights, new theories and beliefs, and new ways of thinking, but if that is knowledge it is certainly knowledge of a very different kind to that produced by empirical research.

Mathematics does let us obtain some kind of knowledge, I think we'll agree, and the process resembles science more than the other disciplines, though the results are clearly different from empirical knowledge in important, interesting, and somewhat mysterious ways.

But you also consider the Bing Bang theory to be 'obtained knowledge' even though we have no objective (direct) measurement/observation of the event. And unless someone is able to build a time-machine we will never be able to directly measure it. That doesn't mean it's not research or 'obtained knowledge' (let alone useless), it is however not part of science.

There are plenty of things that can only be observed indirectly. (In fact, nothing can be perceived directly except perhaps the awareness of our own awareness.) There is plenty of empirical evidence that leads scientists to believe in the Big Bang, and yes, that is very much science.

Coming up with a general theory of how things work based on empirical data and using it to produce a model of something specific that happened, to explain how things came to be the way they are? Yeah, science does that. Using the theory of evolution by natural selection to explain the development of life on Earth and describe its history is another good example.

Of course it can be incorrect...because if the wrong label is assigned to the wrong thing (like for example when you say that a bottle has four legs and miauws) then the definition is wrong. Moreover, if the definition is used as a basis in reasoning - as it is in this case - then the incorrect definition (that is: an incorrect description) leads to incorrect reasoning.

Maybe in some other language the word "bottle" refers to a cat? Like I said, a word means whatever people use it to mean. The definition is not correct or incorrect in itself, only as a statement of how some particular community of speakers uses the word.

Some definitions can be better than others in a particular context, because they make it easier to perform useful tasks within that context. But while a poor choice of terminology can make errors of reasoning more likely ("The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution" -- Bertrand Russell, and quote of the day earlier this week), most evidence is against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in its Orwellian form: limitations in vocabulary and grammar does not make certain thoughts impossible.

However, similar to KhrisMUC's example concerning 'theory', this discussion does not concern the 'meaning as it reflects the generally intended use by people', but the actual use in the scientific world. Since claims are made about what science or scientists say, a definition that contradicts the way true scientists handle science (although they may not always describe/define it as such) is useless in this discussion.

Working scientists do not spend a whole lot of time defining science. That's primarily the realm of philosophers. And I don't see any evidence that they'd be more inclined to your definition than KrishMUC's, anyway.

For the record, I have some familiarity with (to varying degrees) Durkheim, Hahn, Malinowski, Freud, Popper, Russell, Gödel, Wittgenstein, Gadamer, Kuhn, Feuerabend, and other thinkers and philosophers of science. Knowing, meaning, thinking... these are rabbit holes that go all the way to the core of philosophy. Digging, like, an inch deeper and claiming that you have the "right" answer is pretty laughable.

Besides, haven't you been arguing that "the way true scientists handle science" has very little to do with the idealized scientific method and principles, anyway? So by your own logic, shouldn't we define science to mean something like: "Come up with a reasonably convincing story that says what the people funding my grants want to say and that will get me published at the big conferences"?

Unless of course if it does cover two separate (though related) concepts. Because in that case the definition is simply wrong because then the thing people talk about is not equal to the thing they belief they talk about.

Pretty much all abstract terms cover multiple concepts. Again: this is the whole point of generalization and abstraction. Does not make them wrong. The question is whether they are useful.

[Misj']

If you overhear people talk about the weather, do you interrupt them constantly to tell them the sky isn't blue but cerulean?
Seriously.

No I wouldn't. But then again, I'm not a meteorologist, for if I were my answer to this question might have been different.

What I am, however, is a doctor in (cell)biology, a scientist by both education and trade.

So when you are talking about what scientists say and what scientists believe you're talking about me and my colleagues (and I have discussed this (and you) with several of them). So please explain to me in what world of reason and logic someone should trust you - Joe from the gas station - more on the subject of science than me (an actual scientist)?

And how does the fact(?) that many scientists don't trust wp relate in any way to me quoting the wd to clarify what I mean by science?

Very simple: you want to be a teacher about what science is. You said it yourself:

I think if just one believer with an open mind learned something about science or atheism, the existence of this thread is justified.

You want people to learn something about science from you. Yet you don't know the first thing about science. And when a scientist comes along and tells people a different story about science you decide to attack him because it contradicts your superior believes.

So again: I have no hatred towards science or scientists. I do have a beef with self-proclaimed experts who have read a book or two (so to speak) and ow consider themselves to be the authority in the field (I know exactly how you would react to some religious kid who acted that way...but when you do it it's not hypocritical at all, I'm sure). Your ideas and claims are not based on science or scientists! - Apparently you wouldn't even recognize a scientist when he talks to you about the subject of science. Well done, you must be proud of your superior knowledge (that is sooo willing to change when proven wrong)!

Quantum Physics has shown that the observer always influences the observed...hence objectivity and reproducibility at a quantum level is by definition impossible. Both of these are requirements to be part of 'science'.

That's a pretty informal statement of quantum physics, and I suspect that what you think it means isn't what the actual finding is.

Well...it was taught and explained to me by a quantum physicist. Now I'm not a quantum physicist so I'm sure he simplified it, but I've discussed it with other (quantum) physicists and they agreed. I've also discussed the matter with other scientists who independently concluded the same thing. So, I'll go out on a limb here and say that what I think it means is also what it means (because it took quite some time for them to convince me, since I was very sceptical about it).

Besides, KrishMUC was only saying that the quote provided a good statement of his idea of what science is.

Yes, but he also claims to base is ideas on what scientists say and the knowledge obtained by science. So when he uses a definition that is incorrect within the context in which these scientists say things and what of the obtained knowledge what scientific what what was interpretation, then he is claiming a whole lot more that merely his own ideas.

You don't know the "right" definition of science any more than KrishMUC does. Because there isn't one. A word means what people use it to mean. I think KrishMUC's definition more closely matches actual usage, though.

So...I, an actual scientists don't know better what it is that I'm educated in that KhrisMUC? - I fail to see that logic. Yes, a word means what people use it to mean, however, when claims are made about what people - who use a decidedly different definition - 'belief', then the definition of these people should be used. It doesn't matter whether the term 'science' can mean something else to someone not involved: claims are made about scientists, so the scientists' definition should be used.

As for KhrisMUC's definition t more closely match the actual usage: no. Not within the field (science) that he claims to talk about.

Working scientists do not spend a whole lot of time defining science. That's primarily the realm of philosophers. And I don't see any evidence that they'd be more inclined to your definition than KrishMUC's, anyway.

No, we don't spend a lot of time defining science...because WE already know what it is. So we don't have to define it any more.

I can assure you that I have discussed this matter (the so-called followers of science in this thread) with several scientists that I know (and some medical doctors, and some mathematicians, etc). And with the exception of one they all disagreed with KhrisMUC's definition and agreed with mine (the one who did not agree still didn't agree with KhrisMUC's definition, but considered mine a little too constrained...and he was still closer to my definition than to KhrisMUC's). So...you may not see the evidence, but that doesn't mean that I don't have it.


So KhrisMUC, I have to GTFO because we (a layman and a scientist) disagree on the subject of science (which apparently is a fundamental dogma to you). Fine. Just say the word, and I'll get out of here and allow you to spread your lies (that are apparently superior to the truth). You don't have to change your ideas (on science) even though there is ample evidence that they are wrong that's up to you. If you want I'll even let you deny even the most fundamental and basic concepts of reason and logic. All you have to say is this: "I, KhrisMUC, a layman, a 'Joe from the gas station', am more knowledgeable about science than Misj', an actual, active, and studied scientists". But if you can't say it, then STFU about the subject of science.


Ps. To the Moderators: my apologies.

[Khris]

Oh boy. I still don't believe this. You actually had to throw in your credentials. And your colleagues' opinions. Wow, an argument from double "authority"! I retract!
It's so pathetic.
It's also pretty telling that you'd have to be a meteorologist to be sure whether you'd annoy the heck out of people who don't care about your opinion about what type of blue the skies are.

And how does the fact(?) that many scientists don't trust wp relate in any way to me quoting the wd to clarify what I mean by science?

Very simple: you want to be a teacher about what science is. You said it yourself:

I think if just one believer with an open mind learned something about science or atheism, the existence of this thread is justified.

Well, you couldn't be more wrong. I was talking about the THREAD not MY POSTS. According to what I have to read all over the internet and in this thread, there are many people who don't trust science or who think atheism leads to anarchy and amorality.
And since both views were challenged here by many people, I wrote that sentence (mostly to shut up jerks who wanted this thread to get locked).

It's also funny that you accuse me of wanting to "teach what science is" and failing at it, while that is all YOU ever do when you get off your high horse to participate in this thread.
I didn't get hung up on the definition of science, YOU did.

Like I said, please show me where my reasoning lead to a wrong conclusion because it is based on the wrong definition of science.

Since you didn't address what I said earlier, I'm going to repeat it: in your opinion, science is very limited, in the sense that it can only address a very specific set of questions (those related to mechanisms). Your point being that there are many other questions it can't address, e.g. what beauty or love is.
So when I said that science is enough and we don't need e.g. theology, you automatically assumed I thought science to be some all-powerful tool we can always rely on when wanting to address any question.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
What I was trying to say is that the bulk of these other questions isn't really relevant because in my opinion, the universe pretty much consists exclusively of results of mechanisms.

I don't have to be a scientist to understand how the scientific method works, you know. And while I'll freely admit that you are an expert concerning (cell)biology, that doesn't make you an expert about what people mean when they talk about science.

Let me come up with my favorite type of argument, an analogy: We are discussing whether using a car is superior to walking everywhere. Then you, an expert car radio builder, come along to tell us that our reasoning is wrong because we aren't using the proper definition of "car".
At least that's my impression about this utterly senseless discussion about that science is and what it isn't.

[miguel]

C'mon guys!
It's a shame that two bright young lads that contribute enormously to this thread and community to start a war!

[Dualnames]

C'mon guys!
It's a shame that two bright young lads that contribute enormously to this thread and community to start a war!

You better STFU mister.., you started this hell!!(joking,but actually you did)

[Akatosh]

Not bad, thread. Not bad at all. (And yes I realize the number of opened topics went up as well, but it's still rather disproportional).

Oh boy. I still don't believe this.

This.

[miguel]

C'mon guys!
It's a shame that two bright young lads that contribute enormously to this thread and community to start a war!

You better STFU mister.., you started this hell!!(joking,but actually you did)

Ain't I a stinker?

[Matti]

Well, miguel, this could mean that there's no politics and religion IN WINTER!

..maybe more politics then..

[Dualnames]

Not bad, thread. Not bad at all. (And yes I realize the number of opened topics went up as well, but it's still rather disproportional).

Oh boy. I still don't believe this.

This.

I saw this a while ago and posted here:

http://ags-ssh.blogspot.com/2009/08/forums-just-wont-go-down-biatch.html

[Lionmonkey]

Lionmonkey:
What you're doing sounds an awful lot like trolling since there doesn't seem to be a shred of consistency to some of your arguments. Either that or me replying without quotes badly derailed your trains of thought.

It may be not completely consistent, but I think there are at least a few shreds.

How is "A and B implies A" a super-potent force? Do you even read what ends up in your posts?

Of course I do. Let me explain: A and B implies C. But what does imply A and B? C and D. But what does imply them? And so on. When you reach a certain point that way, you learn that there's always at least one implementaition, that has not been implemented by anything. That's the axiom. And it seems to me like a surrogate for a supernatular force for the atheists.

You were asking "Is there anything that can not be disproved?"
So I told you, yes, many things. How does your answer even apply to my answer?
Logic FAIL.

It was a kind of a rethorical question. I wanted to remind you of that argument, I've mentioned before.
I admit, it may be a fail in rhetorics, but not in logics.

You're discrediting science again. Oh my. There might be a few scientists who indeed hold on to ideas despite contradicting evidence, but they end up being ignored by the scientific consensus, got it?
And yes, exactly, properly conducted reproduction will be genuine. It's just that you questioned that in your last post, and now you're confirming it yourself? Make up your mind.
Logic FAIL.

If you're talking about the part of your post, I forgot to put in quotes (my miss), It's corrected now:

Yes, if properly conducted, the reproductions will be genuine.

They won't be perfectly genuine, because the reproducer won't be able to keep all of the billion conditions in mind.

I admit again, this may be a fail to manage the post, but certainly not a fail in logics.

I was talking about countries with a high living standard; that doesn't exactly apply to communist ones, as anybody with a basic knowledge of economy would know.
See, you don't really attack my argument if you twist and maim it beforehand.
So, NO, not North Korea or Cuba, the NETHERLANDS, for example, or NORWAY, or FINLAND.
Logic FAIL.

Let us refreshen our memory:

On the upside, science has improved our understanding of the world and our lives greatly, while religion merely claims the monopoly of (moral) achievements any decent society can have without it. (In case you're wondering, the last statement is based on the fact that the countries with the lowest crime rate and best living standard are also the least religious ones.)

Again, you said "the least religious ones." This implies the countries that have the least amount of "religiosity". And what is the finer example, than the ones with the communist regime?
This was semantics, not logics. I was merely trying people not to get the wrong facts.
Still, not logics.

And there's the next brainfuck: I was the one who said people went on crusades for religious reasons. Then you said you learned it was actually for territorial, political and economical reasons. One post later you tell me you learned people participated to get their SINS cleared.
FAIL, just FAIL.

Let us see:

Both scenarios involve opposing factions, it's just that the first one is based on territorial, political and economical differences while the latter is based on religious differences.

So, by "based on" I guessed you meant the real reason, not the stuff they told the people. That way, yes, I trust I said what I meant.
Your answer:

Read up on what kings and popes told the people why they wanted to go on the crusades. No matter what other motives they had (if any), the people fought and killed each other to get back the holy land from the respective infidels.

I hope, you didn't mean you really thought that kings and popes always told the peasants the truth. Of course they said it, was A holy war, whole knowing that the real reasons are defferent.
Semantics again, not logics.

"Then why are there atheist criminals?"
Aargh. How does that contradict my statement that atheists are aware they're doing something bad? Again, EXTREME LOGIC FAIL.
To spell it out: Atheist criminals are aware that they're doing something bad, just like catholic criminals.
My point was that a (sane) atheist wouldn't kill an abortion doctor in the first place, and if he did, he'd know he deserved punishment.
But the guy who shot Dr. Tiller DOESN'T. He feels he did the right thing.

I highly doubt that it's impossible for an atheist to kill for sentimental reasons, believing this to be the right thing, while still being aware of punishment. Out of revenge, for example.

From now on I'll simply ignore statements of yours that contradict what you've said before. If there is a valid argument in your response, I'll address it.

Aww, come on man, now you're just being zealous.

Bash on KhrisMUC

I think, you should leave the personal criticism to personal messages. This thread is not about that.

2. Regarding Lionmonkey I fully support KhrisMUC. I wouldn't say that he necessarily lacks basic logic, but all he does is throw in some rethorical phrases and questions, but almost never answers the questions / replies to the statements that he quotes. For that reason I already started ignoring him.

Curious. i've actually, been really trying to evaluate and reply to every argument, I've seen, that touched the subject of my post.
I've also thought I was being very kind, gentle, non-agressive, wise, patient, consistent and accurate in this thread until now.

On a final note, Misj and KhrisMUC are both intelligent

I hope you didn't mention me simply by accident.

Calm down. Lionmonkey clearly exhibits a serious lack of consistency in his arguments; I'm sure you as the ultimate authority on logic, reason and science can see that.
I suspect him to be either trolling or pulling arguments out of his ass, so I responded one last time to see what he comes up with next. My post was arrogant, true, because I felt it's probably a waste of time writing it.

I admit that my posts may have been controversial. But then again, what's the point of these threads if each and every post means "Yes, I think you are completely and absolutely right"? But aside from that, I wouldn't consider myself a troll. At least not by Wikipedia. I was just trying to bring something new in this debate.

So in short you said that the "we can't know anything (for sure)" is non-constructive...however, this line of reasoning (that we can't know anything) is the entire basis of Descarte's philosophy, which in turn is considered to be one of the pillars of modern science. So logic would lead one to conclude that stating that the 'we can't know anything'-argument is non-constructive ultimately leads to the conclusion that one of the pillars of modern science is non-constructive, and thus that the scientific method is non-constructive. This is in direct disagreement with your entire argumentation, and could therefore be considered a serious lack of consistency.

Wow, I must've thought everything through to the end.

Lionmonkey thinks that it's useless to try to find out how something works because everything we perceive might be an illusion and although we know why a light bulb lights up if we send current through it, it might stop doing that tomorrow..

I never said, I thought so. I must repeat myself, I meant this mainly to show that the atheists' main argument against religion is flawed, because atheist personal beliefs can not be protected against it.

[Akatosh]

I saw this a while ago and posted here:

http://ags-ssh.blogspot.com/2009/08/forums-just-wont-go-down-biatch.html

Oh. Hmm, maybe I should read one of those blaghs once... 

[Khris]

Lionmonkey:
It's clear that you don't understand the meaning of "A and B implies A" or what an axiom is.
"A and B implies A" means that if a statement A is true and at the same time a statement B is true then it follows that statement A is true.
This is so obviously correct that it is called "self-evident". No additional entity, assumption or whatever is necessary for this to be true. All axioms are of that nature.

They won't be perfectly genuine, because the reproducer won't be able to keep all of the billion conditions in mind.

By that standard all experimental science would become impossible. Again, for practical reasons, certain conditions can be ignored without invalidating the experiment.
E.g. if I want to test whether a bullet-proof vest can withstand a certain type of ammo, I can neglect temperature, humidity or o2-percentage of the air in the room since it won't affect the outcome of the test as long as they are within a certain range. (This of course implies that I can also neglect about a billion other conditions).

the last statement is based on the fact that the countries with the lowest crime rate and best living standard are also the least religious ones.

Again, you said "the least religious ones." This implies the countries that have the least amount of "religiosity". And what is the finer example, than the ones with the communist regime?

My argument went like this: take the countries that have the lowest crime rates and the best living standard. Now look at the religiousness of those countries, it'll be very low.
I'm sure you're aware that communist countries certainly don't have very high living standards nor low crime rates, aren't you? Also, religion is outlawed in communist countries and usually replaced by a mandatory cult-like admiration of the country's leader, which could be considered a religion for purposes of the argument.

I hope, you didn't mean you really thought that kings and popes always told the peasants the truth. Of course they said it, was A holy war, whole knowing that the real reasons are different.

I myself said about the kings/popes: "No matter what other motives they had". You even quoted that. So of course I'm aware that they might have lied to the people. This doesn't matter however, since the people who went on the crusades were motivated by their religion. Sure, the noblemen were promised land and titles, but the mob who slaughtered men, women and children did it for their religion.

I highly doubt that it's impossible for an atheist to kill for sentimental reasons, believing this to be the right thing, while still being aware of punishment. Out of revenge, for example.

You didn't understand what I was getting at. Of course atheists aren't immune against killing out of revenge or jealousy. My point was that sane(!) believers can commit serious crimes while believing what they do is just and that they shouldn't be punished because it's God's will. An atheist has no basis for such a belief.

Your posts haven't been just controversial, my friend. Some of them have been indeed inconsistent.
Of course I don't want you to post "Yes, I think you are completely and absolutely right", but I DO want you to post in a cohesive, logical way.

[Misj']

Let me start at the end

Let me come up with my favorite type of argument, an analogy: We are discussing whether using a car is superior to walking everywhere. Then you, an expert car radio builder, come along to tell us that our reasoning is wrong because we aren't using the proper definition of "car".
At least that's my impression about this utterly senseless discussion about that science is and what it isn't.

And...wow! - That analogy made fairly little sense and described the situation even less...sure, analogies are always limited (that is one of their advances), but this one describes something completely irrelevant.

A good analogy would have been thus:
A couple of people are discussing transportation, some start to talk about planes, others about cars. Then some guys (who have never even seen a car, but have read some books about them) come and claim that transportation equals cars, and that planes therefore don't follow the rules of transportation (that is: the rules of cars) and are therefore not part of transportation. Then another guy pops up and claims that your definition of transportation is incorrect because you apply the rule-set for cars to all transportation, simply because your definition is wrong (cars are part of transportation, transportation not of cars). You then insult him and basically claim to know better. He then tells you that he is a car-maker (albeit of a certain type of cars (Dutch Sport-cars to be exact)) and you then tell him that he might be an expert in making Dutch Sport-cars, but is not an expert on what people mean when they talk about cars.

Now that would have been the correct (and nice) analogy.

I don't have to be a scientist to understand how the scientific method works, you know.

I never claimed any such thing. But you claim to base your ideas on science, while in reality you base your ideas on what you believe to be science which is not the same thing.

And while I'll freely admit that you are an expert concerning (cell)biology, that doesn't make you an expert about what people mean when they talk about science.

Hmm..let's compare that statement to an earlier statement you made:

He [Dawkins] is an atheist with a solid scientific background, and I agree with many if not all of his views.

So in the case of Dawkins (yes, you knew this would come back and bite you) you state that he has a solid scientific background, and in the case of Misj' you state that he 'merely' has a (solid) biological background. Right...right...I see the logic here. It's so overwhelming that I really didn't see it until I was enlightened. No wait...it was just me having to go to the toilet; wasn't enlightenment at all.

Like I said, please show me where my reasoning lead to a wrong conclusion because it is based on the wrong definition of science.

I already done that, but you dismissed them because you don't understand what science is. I then decided not to go into it any further because as long as you don't understand science there is no reasoning...it ends up as me (the rationalist/sceptic/scientist) against your believes. There was no use in continuing that particular discussion (that involved you making the wrong (and often illogical) conclusion) until you'd be willing to accept that your believes might be wrong. But I know how hard it is to convince a believer.

What I was trying to say is that the bulk of these other questions isn't really relevant because in my opinion, the universe pretty much consists exclusively of results of mechanisms.

You do a great job to not-use the words 'but I believe'. But since this opinion is based solely on what you believe to be true, and has no evidence what so ever (at least no scientific evidence...not even within YOUR definition), you will either have to admit that yours is a believe (not a religion, but still a believe)...or you could just keep lying about it, of course that's all up to you.

Well, you couldn't be more wrong. I was talking about the THREAD not MY POSTS. According to what I have to read all over the internet and in this thread, there are many people who don't trust science or who think atheism leads to anarchy and amorality.

And the reason why many people don't trust science is because many people don't understand science (or what it is). This is largely cause by people like you who keep spreading falsehoods/false ideas about science...and even more importantly: who attack those who try to correct them. Up to a certain point some scientists can also be blamed, because they tend to use a simplified definition when talking to laymen...but most of these scientists do know what they are talking about. It's the laymen who take their words out of context and out of proportion. And while some scientists might be slightly to blame here, I understand their trade-of in this matter.

It's also funny that you accuse me of wanting to "teach what science is" and failing at it, while that is all YOU ever do when you get off your high horse to participate in this thread.
I didn't get hung up on the definition of science, YOU did.

Wow...do you really lack ALL concepts of logic, or do you just like to contradict yourself (which is what you do quite often). First you tell people that you think this thread is justified if someone (an open-minded believer) 'learned something about science', and then you tell me - a scientist - to GTFO because I challenge your believes (and what you believe to be science) and actually try to achieve this thing that - according to you - makes this thread justified. I'm sure you're convinced (or at least believe) that there is some sort of logic in that reasoning...but I currently fail to see it.

My objection would be that there's a major difference between a scientific and a religious approach to "looking for the truth".
A scientist tries to make as few assumptions as humanly possible while a religious person is always going to interpret everything they find in the light of their preconceived belief system.

So you BELIEF science is something which it is not, and everything you claim is interpreted in the light of this preconceived belief system. Maybe some of my colleagues were right when they pointed out that atheism is a belief system that is accepted but not supported by science. But then again, what do my colleagues know? - They're just scientists...they surely don't understand science and stuff, and someone who claims to base his ideas on science and scientists would never be as irrational or illogical to actually do just that. I'm sure it's much safer just to live in your fantasy world with your own lies than to actually do as you preach.

Oh...while we're at it, let's get to the subject of failed logic shall we...I do have to add a comment about another claim of yours:

In case you're wondering, the last statement is based on the fact that the countries with the lowest crime rate and best living standard are also the least religious ones.

I don't mean communist countries, I'm talking about Scandinavian ones or the Netherlands, for example. Social Democracies, afaik.

Now being Dutch and all I may not be an expert on the Netherlands (since being a scientist doesn't make me an expert on science either), and you've probably read many many books about the Netherlands I'm sure, and me being born there, and having lived there for my entire life doesn't make up for such expert knowledge. But...

Last time I checked, the Netherlands was governed by two christian parties and a socialist (labour) party (not counting the opposition; naturally). A christian party has always been in the government from 1918-1994 and since 2002, I would think that it is save to say that if the Netherlands has the lowest crime rate this would also relate to the government (and the fact that the population massively votes for the christian parties (the CDA (christian democrats) is the biggest party of the country) might also give an indication there). Between 1994 and 2002 the socialist party (PvdA; which is currently also in the government) together with the 'rich-man's party' (VVD; officially the liberals) governed the country; since that particular combination was largely based on consensus-politics (which turned out to be unproductive), people have rejected that combination. Oh, and just on a side-note, the socialist party (PvdA) is extremely popular with muslim people...who are also religious.

Anyway...I'm glad that my country is fantastic and great, but maybe that is (at least partly) the fault of the government...Now I will admit that I voted for one of the opposition-parties, so I - for one - am not to blame that the Netherlands is like Utopia (albeit more expensive).

Oh boy. I still don't believe this. You actually had to throw in your credentials. And your colleagues' opinions. Wow, an argument from double "authority"! I retract! It's so pathetic.

So your opinion is based on science and scientists...of course not actual science but what you perceive/believe as science, and not actual scientists but fictional scientists that may or may not look like pink unicorns. And when a real scientist - whom you've accused of attacking science several times when he was trying to correct you - tells you that he is a scientist it is pathetic. Yes...you have a really superior logic that is not at all based on your own preconceived ideas and believes.

But I'm convinced you disagree with the fact that you are a believer (and not an open-minded one at that). You disagreeing would be logical, since you're standing on the right side (pun intended):

Yes, science's and religion's methodology of getting to truth is fundamentally different.

Of course should you admit that yours is 'merely' a belief I'd be glad to get out of here. Because while I consider you learning anything to be very unlikely (slightly less unlikely than you willing to learn something), I'm willing to settle for you admitting something (which would be a rarity in itself; but worth the wait).

Lionmonkey:
It's clear that you don't understand the meaning of "A and B implies A" or what an axiom is.
"A and B implies A" means that if a statement A is true and at the same time a statement B is true then it follows that statement A is true.
This is so obviously correct that it is called "self-evident". No additional entity, assumption or whatever is necessary for this to be true. All axioms are of that nature.

Well according to WikiPedia an Axiom is
"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths."

Also from WikiPedia, an Assumption is
"An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts."

Let's not get into definitions here, but if an axiom is 'a truth taken for granted', and an assumption is something that is 'taken for granted', then clearly Lionmonkey's understanding of an axiom would be correct according to Wikipedia. And since Wikipedia is - according to you - what people regard as something when they talk about it, then it is obvious that Lionmonkey's definition must be used here. Unless this is not about 'how people regard something' but about how a specialized group of people (to whom it actually concerns) regard something. I am pretty sure it's not though, because logic would dictate that same would apply to science (and what it is)...but according to you it doesn't. Some might call that contradicting...some - who who are not so hung up on definitions - might call it a cuddly pink unicorn.

EDIT: added section about axioms, and removed one line in an earlier paragraph.

[Matti]

Since WW2, Germany was also mainly ruled by the christian party, but nevertheless it's one of the least religious countries. The christian party is one of the two major parties and that won't change in the near future. But the party is mainly supported because people believe it does a good job (not me) and because they're conservative, not religious.

Khris statement that countries with the best living standards are the least religious ones is just true. I can understand that since poor people in countries waged by war have more to pray for...

Besides that I think I'll stay out of this thread until it gets less personal, friendlier and stops being a (mainly two-man-)discussion about definitions..

[Misj']

Khris statement that countries with the best living standards are the least religious ones is just true. I can understand that since poor people in countries waged by war have more to pray for...

My apologies if I did not understand that the assumption was that the living standards and the lowest crime rates were mostly due to the population and not the government. While I think this assumption is debatable (though very much defensible), I'll accept it, and reconsider the original statement:

In case you're wondering, the last statement is based on the fact that the countries with the lowest crime rate and best living standard are also the least religious ones.

I don't mean communist countries, I'm talking about Scandinavian ones or the Netherlands, for example. Social Democracies, afaik.

So let me take a look at the world according to mapsofworld.com (I did not check their assessment, so I can't vouch for it):


The Scandinavian countries are specifically referred to in the quote, and while I would agree that the map concerns the reported crimes and not all crimes, nor does it differentiate between lesser and bigger crimes (which is valid to this particular discussion of course), all Scandinavian countries are among the 10-ten reported-crimes countries.

Now I'm not claiming that this has anything to do with them being secular. But based on these facts the most logical conclusion would be to dismiss the hypothesis postulated, that ' the countries with the lowest crime rate ... are also the least religious ones [with the Scandinavian countries as a testing model]'

[Khris]

Point out the differences between my science and your science, preferably in one sentence, so we can finally get over this stupid pile of shit of a sub-discussion that fucked up the entire thread.


You can call me a believer as much as you like, that doesn't make me one.
The reason is simple and I already mentioned it:
Not believing in something doesn't automatically make you a believer of the opposite.
I don't believe there are invisible pink unicorns, but that doesn't make me a believer of "there are no invisible pink unicorns".
If it did, everybody of us were a follower of thousands of "belief systems".
But that's not how belief is defined. Belief is "holding something true without evidence". I don't do it. It's as simple as that.

So when I "believe", as you call it, that the universe consists of matter and mechanisms because I haven't seen any evidence pointing to the contrary, that doesn't make me a believer.
If you still think it does, fine, I don't care.
There's plenty of people who can't wrap their head around this simple issue.


And to make this clear once and for all: I don't lie here. Why would I? Fuck you.


About the Netherlands: you can stuff your politics lesson. You still don't get even the simplest points I'm making. It's completely irrelevant whether the party is Christian or not; like Mr Matti mentioned, we have our own (CDU). That doesn't make a country religious.
What constitutes religiousness is church attendance, belief (haha) in evolution, atheist percentage of the population, etc.

10 seconds of googling, and I got this:
http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/index.php?id=219&article=7

Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. [...] Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch.

And this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/

In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedesâ€"probably the most godless people on Earth. They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. Andâ€"even without belief in a God looming over themâ€"they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.

See, that's why I think you're a pretentious idiot. Instead of taking a step back and looking at the whole picture, you focus on alleged and/or pin-sized holes in my arguments.

And hell yes, I'm totally sure my completely wrong concept of science has done massive damage to its reputation in the eyes of every reader of this thread. But thank God, our Lord, for you, Captain Science!


Concerning axioms:
Yeah right, a Mercedes Benz is a car and a Lexus is car, therefore a Mercedes Benz and a Lexus are the same. But let's not get into that here, right?
It's obvious Lionmonkey doesn't know what an axiom is, did you even read what he wrote?

Of course I do. Let me explain: A and B implies C. But what does imply A and B? C and D. But what does imply them? And so on. When you reach a certain point that way, you learn that there's always at least one implementaition, that has not been implemented by anything. That's the axiom. And it seems to me like a surrogate for a supernatular force for the atheists.

Imagine I said it.
Go, Captain Science, take that apart, will ya?

[SSH]

Don't you love ad-hominem 

[Lionmonkey]

Lionmonkey:
It's clear that you don't understand the meaning of "A and B implies A" or what an axiom is.
"A and B implies A" means that if a statement A is true and at the same time a statement B is true then it follows that statement A is true.
This is so obviously correct that it is called "self-evident". No additional entity, assumption or whatever is necessary for this to be true. All axioms are of that nature.

Oh sorry about the misconeption, I thought you had made a typo. Now let me give you a more proper argument: If A and B are both true, then A is true. Isn't it a bit of tautology at best. How do you know A was true in the first place?

My argument went like this: take the countries that have the lowest crime rates and the best living standard. Now look at the religiousness of those countries, it'll be very low.
I'm sure you're aware that communist countries certainly don't have very high living standards nor low crime rates, aren't you? Also, religion is outlawed in communist countries and usually replaced by a mandatory cult-like admiration of the country's leader, which could be considered a religion for purposes of the argument.

Okay, I accept, it's just your choise of words that confused me. You can forget abaout the argument if you wis.

I myself said about the kings/popes: "No matter what other motives they had". You even quoted that. So of course I'm aware that they might have lied to the people. This doesn't matter however, since the people who went on the crusades were motivated by their religion. Sure, the noblemen were promised land and titles, but the mob who slaughtered men, women and children did it for their religion.

Then this boils down to different views on war between us. You presume that the people are the main driving force in it, the ones who do the job, thus the reasons they had for the war are the most important ones.
I, on the other hand, think that it is about the leaders, who have their own reasons, but make their people participate, by convincing them, it's for their own good.
I don't know, which one of these can really be called more important.

You didn't understand what I was getting at. Of course atheists aren't immune against killing out of revenge or jealousy. My point was that sane(!) believers can commit serious crimes while believing what they do is just and that they shouldn't be punished because it's God's will. An atheist has no basis for such a belief.

Here's a scenario: An atheist has his wife raped and murdered by a man with high influence, who gets out of this with both hands clean. Would the atheist,if he decided to kill this antagonist, consider his own act unjust?

Your posts haven't been just controversial, my friend. Some of them have been indeed inconsistent.
Of course I don't want you to post "Yes, I think you are completely and absolutely right", but I DO want you to post in a cohesive, logical way.

Okay, then please show me what you think is the proper way.

Belief is "holding something true without evidence". I don't do it. It's as simple as that.

There's always gotta be at least some evidence. The difference is how much credibility a person gives to it.

It's obvious Lionmonkey doesn't know what an axiom is, did you even read what he wrote?

Of course I do. Let me explain: A and B implies C. But what does imply A and B? C and D. But what does imply them? And so on. When you reach a certain point that way, you learn that there's always at least one implementaition, that has not been implemented by anything. That's the axiom. And it seems to me like a surrogate for a supernatular force for the atheists.

Imagine I said it.

I still like it. It's not that obvious to me.

Don't you love ad-hominem 

Come on man, this is a free forum, right. If a member has got a problem with something, why tease one?