Real World Philospohy

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by spoon:

Yes, but the example you cited wasn't accepted by scientists worldwide[/quote]... and if you'll note, I included both time and place when noting that there is a tendancy for theory about the ancient past to align with political needs....

Originally posted by spoon:
, just by the ones who would get shot for not following the party line...

... and those who aren't sufficiently close to the politically accepted Version elsewhere are simply excluded, to a similar effect overall (barring the personal perspective of 'but they got killed!' - either way, they still suddenly have very little impact on the community anymore)

Originally posted by spoon:
Again, you example isn't about science per se, but about people mis-using science for political reasons. The science of evolution is sound, reliable, and as close to proven as you can come in a theory. The fact that people were drawing fallacious social inferences from it, as the racists you mention did, does not make the science bad.

Not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it (which is what you seem to be responding to it as).

Originally posted by spoon:
This is a great example of immoral behavior. It, unfortunately, has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of science.

Again, not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it (which is what you seem to be responding to it as).

Originally posted by spoon:
Just for clarification, you need both a Creator and a Creator that provides these rules. I take it you mean a Christian God, since not all the gods were so forthcoming with imperatives as He.

Not all, but most have their lists of imperitives, and most do have their Version of "be good," however "good" is defined for them.

Originally posted by spoon:

In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.

That's a standard based on temporal power ... which I mentioned in the segment you quote ... and I even specified "that you can get away with" (which you also quoted).

I kinda get the impression you aren't reading these too terribly closely.

Besides, any secular system ultimately relies on most people wanting to follow the rules, as any enforcement system (barring things like field executions) can be overwhelmed by a sufficient number of rule breakers. The US seems to be having a touch of that problem at the moment.

Originally posted by spoon:
Ironically, you are free to do those things even with a Christian God. You just need to be sure to repent and accept Jesus as you savior sometime before you die. (at least according to some interpretations...)

With most, there is a catch to that - God wants a repentant heart. Someone confessing primarily to avoid consequences is not likely to get forgiveness. Also, the Bible is actually very clear on temporal consequences as well as the ultimate variety, and the ultimate variety is usually the only sort God forgives when someone repents.

Also, not all interpertations are correct.

Originally posted by spoon:
You see conspiracy, I see deduction...

There's a pretty big string of if's on that, several of which are pretty far from proven.

Originally posted by spoon:
Not so. The problems with the Big Bang model are well documented, and are currently being researched and studied and speculated on. The reason that the model is accepted today is because it does such a great job in explaining other factors...

Oy, do I need to make absolutely certain I include all my qualifiers and sub-explanations on there every single time? As I've mentioned before, they debate the details - sequence, mechanisims, and the like - but few dispute the main theses, when there are enough problems that they ought to be, and there are other possibilities for the other factors with different models.

Originally posted by spoon:
which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.

Also, it puts them in the interesting position of not needing to properly defend their position, as any problems are part of the "being evaluated" segment. I suspect it will be undergoing re-evaluation until the end of time.

Originally posted by spoon:

That's mainly because, in the case of evolution and the Big Bang, the vast majority of the details and mechanisms seem to support the theory.

Not really. There's lots of contradictions and problems with all competing camps. Besides, if the details and mechanisims actually supported the theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them, as they would all essentially agree....

Originally posted by spoon:
There is a lot of money in Christianity, if someone had an idea that would overturn the thinking on evolution, I don't think they'd have a hard time getting money for it...

Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile. It's surprisingly difficult to get large amounts of funding for anything specific, more so for one which there is disagreement even between the different factions of Christianity.

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
(what's the plural of thesis?)

theses

---

Good to know.

Other's Posts later, as I have time.

[ November 20, 2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
and if you'll note, I included both time and place when noting that there is a tendancy for theory about the ancient past to align with political needs....

Your example is the equivalent of debunking God by saying, The Son of Sam heard the Voice of God, so therefore God is bad. It was an isolated and extreme example, and not reflective of the current state of affairs.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
...and those who aren't sufficiently close to the politically accepted Version elsewhere are simply excluded.

By politics here, I assume you mean the politics of the scientists, and not, say, world politics. If this is the case, the reason it is difficult to get "revolutionary" ideas accepted is because they have a lot to overcome. It is not a conspiracy to keep, for example, Young Earth theories down. The reason Young Earth theories aren't accepted is because they are bogus. The arguments I've read about have all been addressed and discredited.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it.

You got your causality backwards, then. Racsim didn't beget evolution. Evolution did beget, however, the mostly innaccurate idea of Social Darwinism. Or are you saying that it's racism that keeps evolution in favor these days?

As far as the scientists using human as "specimens", I'm not sure, then, what "politcal wind" you draw from there. Please elaborate. Not on the details, but rather how it applies to the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by Spoon:
In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
That's a standard based on temporal power ... which I mentioned in the segment you quote ... and I even specified "that you can get away with" (which you also quoted).

How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

I kinda get the impression you aren't reading these too terribly closely.

Easy does it, buckeroo

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Also, not all interpertations are correct.

Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation? Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Oy, do I need to make absolutely certain I include all my qualifiers and sub-explanations on there every single time?

Don't you hate that!

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
As I've mentioned before, they debate the details - sequence, mechanisims, and the like - but few dispute the main theses, when there are enough problems that they ought to be, and there are other possibilities for the other factors with different models.

Not true. Details are debated and then compared to the model. Model adopts to the changes. Other models are welcome, but few make the cut. Do you have a better model? Please tell!

Originally posted by spoon:
which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.

You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth. Take the theory of my Left Foot. Now, I believe that my left foot is indeed connected to my left leg, and there are lots of facts and details to support this conclusion. In fact, the theory of my Left Foot is about as close to proven as you can come with a theory. However, if you were to come up with some evidence, say, that really I am just a brain in a jar, and, in fact, I have no left foot at all, then I will revise my Left Foot theory with the inclusion of that datum.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
I suspect it will be undergoing re-evaluation until the end of time..

And you would be right! Such is the nature of science. You can't squeeze Truth out of a photon.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
There's lots of contradictions and problems with all competing camps. Besides, if the details and mechanisims actually supported the theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them, as they would all essentially agree....

Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile.

Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It's surprisingly difficult to get large amounts of funding for anything specific, more so for one which there is disagreement even between the different factions of Christianity.

True for secular scientific endeavors as well. Too bad. (I don't mean that facetiously, it really is too bad).

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by DavidG:
WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!

That was not my intent, but I do see how someone could come to that conclusion as being my intent.

Originally posted by DavidG:

A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.

Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions. One major catch comes when people strongly disagree on an the right/wrong of an action based on those assumptions one an issue they consider very important. Lacking a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the matter, one of the following will eventually result:
1) Suppression of one side
2) Mutual isolation (usually only possible where there is already a geographic separation)
3) Unpleasantness (of one sort or another) until either one side is reduced to the point where (1) or (2) is feasable, or things reach the point where stopping it becomes more important than the triggering issue to enough interested parties.

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by deccan:
Hey, Jack Simth, I don't quite know what you're driving, because you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing, but don't really dissent from the view that science, while not being perfect, is still by far the best method that we know of of obtaining knowledge about the universe.

I have no doubt that human nature being what it is, truths are being bent everyday in the name of science, and if all you're asking for is a general skepticism towards the most extreme, hard-to-prove claims in science, then I don't think anyone will object.

But the thing is that if you have a specific grievance or objection to what is considered accepted truth in science, and you believe that you can formulate a reasonable argument in its support, then you could always raise it in a venue more serious than a game forum, such as an academic institution or a scientific journal. And if they give you short shrift, then I'm sure plenty of mainstream news organizations would like to have your story.

Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before, and either require that the debate be live or require a no-editing contract, neither of which the media is willing to grant.

At least, that's the Version I read in one piece of creationist literature, anyway.

[Fyron]

Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions. One major catch comes when people strongly disagree on an the right/wrong of an action based on those assumptions one an issue they consider very important. Lacking a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the matter, one of the following will eventually result:
1) Suppression of one side
2) Mutual isolation (usually only possible where there is already a geographic separation)
3) Unpleasantness (of one sort or another) until either one side is reduced to the point where (1) or (2) is feasable, or things reach the point where stopping it becomes more important than the triggering issue to enough interested parties.

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct.

Only if you want to absurdly take things to the absolute extreme. It is quite possible (and happens all the time) for 2 parties with differing secular views to come to a mutually acceptable agreement without ever having to hurt each other.

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do.

[ November 20, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Only if you want to absurdly take things to the absolute extreme. It is quite possible (and happens all the time) for 2 parties with differing secular views to come to a mutually acceptable agreement without ever having to hurt each other.

I did specify "strongly disagree" - which you quoted! - but it doesn't require an "absolute extreme" to get such things - one modern in progress example would be the abortion issue - one side views it as murder, the other as women's rights with their own bodies (broad generalizations there - there are many shades between; but that is the "standard" characterization of the two sides). Not everyone involved feels strongly enough about it to resort to violence, but enough do that violence ensues. As far as I know, it has yet to run full course.

Also, those three options I listed have differeng shades of degree (the reason I used unpleasantness, rather than violence in the original) - mutual isolation might be a matter of "what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business" - usually the case with adultery, for example; suppression might be a matter of illegalizing the activity and letting the police deal with it - the case with pot usage in the US, for example.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do.

Can you name such a system and give details on it?

[Fyron]

Can you name such a system and give details on it?

I can't name one, as that would be silly... but here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

Here is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions. They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions.

This seems a better system than The Burning Bush Said So system. Especially when what exactly the Bush said is debatable and subject to interpretation.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before.

And it probably doesn't help matters that creationism is junk science without merit...

[Jack Simth]

Fyron: The possibility you site is not, in and of itself, an assumption, but your method of getting there and analyisis of it has underlying "feels-right" assumptions:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

Assumes other people are fundamentally important (and presupposes some assumed definition of person); without that assumption, harming another would be no more wrong than killing a potato plant to eat the potatos.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Here is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

Same basic underlying assumption as the Last, with an addition of freedom being a feature it is fundamentally right for others to have. Moreover, there is an additional underlying assumption of what freedoms are(n't) to be included on the list - I doubt very much, for example, that you would include the freedom to take things from people in there.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions.

Sure they do - the "feel-right" assumptions simply aren't stated in them.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

Ah, but to go from your "source data" to the conclusions above requires a "feels-right" assumption: personal consequences are fundamentally important in ethical considerations. Also, without the other underlying assumptions I listed earlier for your conclusions, you can only arrive at a "for the most part" conclusion from the data and "personal consequences are important" assumption; specific cases may very well be otherwise. E.g., under social stability is important because of personal consequences, a buisness mogul might find it acceptable to murder someone to prevent certain business pratices of his from coming to light, if such a happenstance would financially crush the mogul - the risk of the mogul getting harmed from the societal instibility generated by the murder being considerably less than the highly-probably consequences of letting the person bring those practices to light, with ensuing loss of the mogul's financial standing.

Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).