*Trigger Warning & Profanity* Animosity towards 'New Atheists'

[Loony Le Fist]

Here goes. :laugh: This post contains lots of foul language and extreme dislike of wackadoo fundamentalists.

Firstly, let me introduce the points of agreement. Sam Harris is a torture apologist which I find especially repugnant, considering he has a PhD in cognitive neuroscience. It doesn't help that he is a smug asshole. Anyone that supports the Iraq war like Christopher Hitchens did, is also morally bankrupt and an apologist for capitalist imperialism. This was all the more disappointing coming from Hitchens, considering that he was more leftist in his younger days. Dawkins can definitely come off as abrasive and snobbish, but no more so than many other intellectuals I've encountered.

However, save for those shortcomings (which I acknowledge are significant), aren't their criticisms of religion dead-on-balls accurate? Evolution is true! Those that disagree deserve to be mocked. It is straight up fucking ignorant to think evolution is wrong, in light of the evidence. Those that subscribe to Christian "Science" who murder their children by praying instead of seeking medical care warrant the most severe ridicule and should be held accountable. Jackasses that run camps like those featured in the movie Jesus Camp (they worshiped an idol of George W. Bush--I mean common!) should be humiliated mercilessly for subjecting children to God bullying and horseshit peddling. Those that wish to limit abortions by force of law are barbarians that wish to limit the autonomy of women. New Atheists are in the right to criticize these fools. Just because we might find their other views disgusting doesn't make them wrong where they are on point. It sounds like I'm singling out Christians here, but trust me, there's plenty of criticism to go around. For example, fundamentalist Islam also has a severe misogyny problem, along with many of the same aforementioned concerns. However, I don't feel a need to go into the details, because there already exists quite a bit of criticism.

Frankly, I'm tired of theists playing the hurt feelings card. I find it a relief that after all these years of silence, atheists are finally taking the fight to religious nuts despite the objectionable views of specific participants. Shouldn't we be glad that this nonsense is finally being called out? Isn't organized religion just another hierarchical institution that should be dismantled? We must be willing to go after the religious where they are wrong. Religion doesn't need to be outlawed, but certain varieties of it are quite deserving of derision.

The New Atheists are right in saying that religion deserves absolutely no inherent respect. No one's views should ever have the privilege of self-justifying respect. They must be justified. They are correct in asserting that moderates provide cover for the fundamentalists. Nonetheless it would be nice if the New Atheist movement had fewer apologists for neoliberal hegemony.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

You're pretty much spot-on. However, the reason I don't like the movement is because it doesn't just criticize people who send their kids to Jesus camp and brainwash them with creationism. If they only criticized nut jobs like that, then I would be a vocal supporter. But they don't just criticize insane religious people. They just sort of berate anyone who says they believe in a higher power. It starts to get a little cringe-worthy and into fedora territory. It's almost like they've turned into trolls who forgot about their objective.

And then of course the obvious that you pointed out is that they support the neoliberal machine. They just have this one goal to turn the world atheist which is something I can support if it weren't for the fact that they criticize ANY belief other than atheism. It's not JUST the insane people. They're just like "all Muslims are stupid, all Christians are stupid, fuck them." Just kind of makes me cringe.

But in essence, I do agree that religious fundamentalists SHOULD be called stupid and berated for their dangerous beliefs. I am a huge supporter of aggressively calling out people who teach against evolution and send their kids to brainwashing camps.

[Hrafn]

New Atheists are religious fundamentalists themselves, more or less.

*tips fedora*

[Loony Le Fist]

...
If they only criticized nut jobs like that, then I would be a vocal supporter. But they don't just criticize insane religious people. They just sort of berate anyone who says they believe in a higher power. It starts to get a little cringe-worthy and into fedora territory. It's almost like they've turned into trolls who forgot about their objective.


I think they do it partially because they feel moderates provide cover for the fundies. You are correct that many New Atheists put all religious people in the same category. However, I have heard Dawkins, in particular, claim that his real problem lies specifically with fundamentalists. From what I've read, those that don't promote fairy tales about our origins don't really seem to irk him as much. Indeed, he seems to have a good working relationship with the Anglican Bishop Richard Douglas Harries. He has collaborated with him in promoting the teaching of actual science in school classrooms.

For example, I think his conversation with Bishop Harries in this video is very civilized.


Dawkins Talking with Bishop Harries




And then of course the obvious that you pointed out is that they support the neoliberal machine. They just have this one goal to turn the world atheist which is something I can support if it weren't for the fact that they criticize ANY belief other than atheism. It's not JUST the insane people. They're just like "all Muslims are stupid, all Christians are stupid, fuck them." Just kind of makes me cringe.


I think there are some pretty awful New Atheists. However I encourage you to look at Dawkins' BBC special The Root of All Evil?, you will notice that the only people that he takes on are fundamentalist nuts. While he criticizes all religious belief, he appears to reserve the most scathing criticism for the worst offenders. Note that BBC made him add a question mark to the end of the title.


The Root of All Evil?


I just think there are a lot of people here that have made up their mind about Dawkins, without actually listening to what the guy has to say.

[Loony Le Fist]

New Atheists are religious fundamentalists themselves, more or less.

*tips fedora*

Are they really? Maybe I misunderstand here, but I don't think New Atheism is about the promotion of the idea that there is no god. It is about the promotion of the idea that there insufficient empirical evidence to justify belief in one. While I have never heard a New Atheist claim that there absolutely is no god, I have heard religious fundamentalists claim there absolutely is one. The first is a skeptical agnostic position, the latter is an absolutist gnostic position. Ask yourself who the real fundamentalists are.

Again, while I disagree with those that are neoliberal apologists (most of them), I completely agree that there is no evidence to justify god belief and that we should be especially hostile towards unjustified beliefs that are harmful.

[Loony Le Fist]

Perhaps I am wrong about Dawkins being an apologist for neoliberalism. After all, he does make a small dig at free-markets a foreword to a book. Maybe someone could drill down and figure out what his true position is.



I have lately been reading a book of essays and review articles by Richard Dawkins, and mostly I agree with him, about most things. However, in his Foreward to a book called Pyramids of Life, which he here entitles “Ecology of Genes”, he indulges in an aside on the subject of the free market (p. 266 of my Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003 paperback edition):



Foreward to Pyramids of Life
As Adam Smith understood long ago, an illusion of harmony and real efficiency will emerge in an economy dominated by self-interest at a lower level.



This is from some Tea Partier's blog (http://www.samizdata.net/2004/03/a-surprising-aside-by-richard/) who goes on to criticize Dawkins's position. :ohmy: The piece is titled A surprising aside by Richard Dawkins about the free market.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As I said in another thread, the problem with "New Atheists" is that, as bourgeois liberals beholden to "their own" states and their ideological apparatus, they are not atheist enough. The entire "agnostic atheist" thing, after all, is a standard "New Atheist" position - although surprisingly none of them profess an agnosticism about phlogiston and so on. Dawkins loves himself some Jesus as well. It's all so Middle-England, so milquetoast, so toothless.

That doesn't mean, of course, that everyone should be extra careful around religious people. But I think the "old" atheists are more than enough.

[Loony Le Fist]

As I said in another thread, the problem with "New Atheists" is that, as bourgeois liberals beholden to "their own" states and their ideological apparatus, they are not atheist enough. The entire "agnostic atheist" thing, after all, is a standard "New Atheist" position - although surprisingly none of them profess an agnosticism about phlogiston and so on. Dawkins loves himself some Jesus as well. It's all so Middle-England, so milquetoast, so toothless.


Well the difference between phlogiston and gods is that we now have an alternative explanation that completely explains fire. The old understanding has been completely falsified, because the new understanding completely explains what we observe.

Gods are different. There is no test you can perform (that we know of at this time) to prove or disprove their existence. Therefore the question is unknowable. It isn't as if the proposition a god exists is falsifiable, like phlogiston. Therefore it is fair to be a little more agnostic about that particular proposition. If we develop a test for the existence of a god, then we can actually draw a conclusion that would be just as solid as that for phlogiston.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well the difference between phlogiston and gods is that we now have an alternative explanation that completely explains fire. The old understanding has been completely falsified, because the new understanding completely explains what we observe.

Gods are different. There is no test you can perform (that we know of at this time) to prove or disprove their existence. Therefore the question is unknowable. It isn't as if the proposition a god exists is falsifiable, like phlogiston. Therefore it is fair to be a little more agnostic about that particular proposition. If we develop a test for the existence of a god, then we can actually draw a conclusion that would be just as solid as that for phlogiston.

Falsificationism is a dead end when it comes to explaining science, which even Popper was aware of (of course, his solution was to attack science - namely evolutionary theory - for not fitting his theory).

[Loony Le Fist]

Falsificationism is a dead end when it comes to explaining science, which even Popper was aware of (of course, his solution was to attack science - namely evolutionary theory - for not fitting his theory).

How is one supposed to determine if one's explanation for something is accurate if they cannot devise an experiment to disprove that explanation? In other words, if something cannot be disproven, it is not science.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How is one supposed to determine if one's explanation for something is accurate if they cannot devise an experiment to disprove that explanation? In other words, if something cannot be disproven, it is not science.

But as Popper himself noted, much of biology fails this criterion, particularly given how Popper (and the New Atheists who cite Popper like scripture - I don't think a single one of them bar Dennet has even heard of people like Lakatos) understands falsification. Oh, general relativity was "disproved" as well. And how do you propose we test if Born's rule is true?

[Loony Le Fist]

But as Popper himself noted, much of biology fails this criterion, particularly given how Popper (and the New Atheists who cite Popper like scripture - I don't think a single one of them bar Dennet has even heard of people like Lakatos) understands falsification. Oh, general relativity was "disproved" as well.


How does biology fail this criteria? Do you mean evolution? If you mean evolution fails this criteria, I can assure you that you are truly mistaken.

I know GR needs to be refined because we have to find a way to merge it with a quantum theory of gravity. I also know there are several candidate explanations like LQG and string theory (which currently both suffer from a lack of falsifiability, so their status as scientific theories is disputed due to current limits on devising and performing the necessary experiment). I'm curious about how and when exactly GR was disproven. Could you elaborate?



And how do you propose we test if Born's rule is true?

That's kinda the whole point. You can't prove anything with science. You can only demonstrate that your theory

Makes accurate predictions
Has not been disproven.


Theories can only be disproved, they cannot be proved. That's what falsifiability means.

[BolshevikBabe]

I think what Vincent is referring to is that fact Popper considered natural selection unfalsifiable at one point, and referred to it as a "metaphysical research programme" iirc.

[Loony Le Fist]

I think what Vincent is referring to is that fact Popper considered natural selection unfalsifiable at one point, and referred to it as a "metaphysical research programme" iirc.

Well then Mr. Popper needs to check himself, before he wrecks himself--so to speak. :laugh:'

I can assure you wholeheartedly that natural selection is quite falsifiable. I'd be more than happy to cite specific examples, since I have written extensive blog posts on the topic. :lol:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How does biology fail this criteria? Do you mean evolution? If you mean evolution fails this criteria, I can assure you that you are truly mistaken.

But it does, and as I said, Popper himself recognised this. In Unended Quest, he writes:

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories. "

Now, of course, evolutionary theory is very well established. There is nothing wrong or metaphysical about revolutionary theory - but there is quite a bit that is wrong with Popperian falsificationism, which can't account for the success of evolutionary theory.


I know GR needs to be refined because we have to find a way to merge it with a quantum theory of gravity. I also know there are several candidate explanations like LQG and string theory (which currently both suffer from a lack of falsifiability, so their status as scientific theories is disputed due to current limits on devising and performing the necessary experiment). I'm curious about how and when exactly GR was disproven. Could you elaborate?

It wasn't disproved. It was "disproved" because early experiments concerning gravitational lensing gave a negative result. So according to Popperian criteria, general relativity is wrong. But obviously it isn't.



That's kinda the whole point. You can't prove anything with science. You can only demonstrate that your theory

Makes accurate predictions
Has not been disproven.


Theories can only be disproved, they cannot be proved. That's what falsifiability means.

Except, of course, we regularly say that scientific theories are true and proven. Once again, falsificationism has problems explaining of scientific behaviour.

The rest of the objection is irrelevant - what experiment could falsify Born's rule?

[Loony Le Fist]

But it does, and as I said, Popper himself recognised this. In Unended Quest, he writes:

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories. "

Now, of course, evolutionary theory is very well established. There is nothing wrong or metaphysical about revolutionary theory - but there is quite a bit that is wrong with Popperian falsificationism, which can't account for the success of evolutionary theory.


Well Popper was wrong. Even back when he said it he was wrong.




It wasn't disproved. It was "disproved" because early experiments concerning gravitational lensing gave a negative result. So according to Popperian criteria, general relativity is wrong. But obviously it isn't.


Again, who cares what Popper says? :laugh:

What matters is that more accurate experiments demonstrated that GR was in fact not falsifiable and provides predictable results. If it wasn't, then your GPS would give inaccurate results, since it's designed to take GR into account. GR also remains falsifiable.



Except, of course, we regularly say that scientific theories are true and proven.


Colloquially that is accurate. In a more precise sense however, nothing is provable, only disprovable.



Once again, falsificationism has problems explaining of scientific behaviour.


What do you mean by scientific behavior.



The rest of the objection is irrelevant - what experiment could falsify Born's rule?

I'm certainly no expert in quantum mechanics, but I'll give it a shot. :D

So apparently here's what Born's rule is.



The Born rule states that if an observable corresponding to a Hermitian operator A with discrete spectrum is measured in a system with normalized wave function ψ (see bra–ket notation [sic]), then:

the measured result will be one of the eigenvalues λ of A, and
the probability of measuring a given eigenvalue λ[i] will equal <ψ[i]|P[i]|ψ>, where P[i] is the projection onto the eigenspace of A corresponding to λ[i]

...

(source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule)


So basically if we take a measurement, and these criteria are not met, then Born's rule is falsified. Therefore it is scientific, because there is a precise set of criteria that we can use to disprove it. Honestly I don't understand what many of these terms mean, except for psi, but I do know that there is a specific set of measurements that can be made, and if it doesn't adhere, it would be falsified.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well Popper was wrong. Even back when he said it he was wrong.

[...]

Again, who cares what Popper says? :laugh:

Well, the "New Atheists" do, as does a lot of the so-called "scientific skeptic" milieu. In fact, you seem to care as well, since you are implicitly using Popper's arguments. For example, you write:


Colloquially that is accurate. In a more precise sense however, nothing is provable, only disprovable.

Now, what might that "more precise sense" be? Obviously the sense in which Popperian philosophy - which no serious philosopher of science considers to be true, by the way - takes these terms. But that is something peculiar to Popper and his epigones; scientists are not obliged to stop referring to their theories as true and proven simply because Popper objected to the terms on spurious grounds.


What matters is that more accurate experiments demonstrated that GR was in fact not falsifiable and provides predictable results. If it wasn't, then your GPS would give inaccurate results, since it's designed to take GR into account. GR also remains falsifiable.

Now you're contradicting yourself - you wanted to say that subsequent experiments proved GR to be correct. And they did. But that's not how Popper would view the events in question. And the problem of the first negative event remains.

Anyway, let us suppose that GPS readings start diverging from the predictions of general relativity. Does that mean GR is incorrect? No, it could mean that there are additional bodies or gravitational fields in the Solar System (Neptune was discovered by its gravitational effect). So it seems that GR is not falsifiable, since one could invent new bodies to fix the theory (this is something Lakatos understood).


What do you mean by scientific behavior.

I mean what scientists do when they do science.


I'm certainly no expert in quantum mechanics, but I'll give it a shot. :D

So apparently here's what Born's rule is.

[...]

So basically if we take a measurement, and these criteria are not met, then Born's rule is falsified. Therefore it is scientific, because there is a precise set of criteria that we can use to disprove it. Honestly I don't understand what many of these terms mean, except for psi, but I do know that there is a specific set of measurements that can be made, and if it doesn't adhere, it would be falsified.

Right, you aren't familiar with the terms, which is fine, but it means your subsequent argument is confused. You seem to be saying - measure the probabilities, measure the state, square the state, then see if the two quantities match. But you can't measure the state.

[Loony Le Fist]

Now, what might that "more precise sense" be? Obviously the sense in which Popperian philosophy - which no serious philosopher of science considers to be true, by the way - takes these terms. But that is something peculiar to Popper and his epigones; scientists are not obliged to stop referring to their theories as true and proven simply because Popper objected to the terms on spurious grounds.

In the strictest sense nothing is provable only disprovable. If there are no criteria from which one can say something is false, then it is useless as a theory. Proving something (used in the practical sense) requires both a verified replicated set of positive results and a complete lack of confirmed contradictory results. Old experiments can be called into question on the basis of their validity. The only way to do that is to, again, use falsifiable criteria.



Now you're contradicting yourself - you wanted to say that subsequent experiments proved GR to be correct.


I meant:



What matters is that more accurate experiments demonstrated that GR was in fact not falsified and provides predictable results. If it wasn't, then your GPS would give inaccurate results, since it's designed to take GR into account. GR also remains falsifiable.


I meant falsified instead of falsifiable. It's called a mistake--unfortunately I am just a lowly human being. I am allowed that, right? :laugh:

Subsequent experiments demonstrated that the results obtained by applying GR are both repeatable and not falsified. One could call that proof because so far that is the most accurate result we have obtained. Future data could refine GR further, but would not necessarily disprove it. It would only demonstrate there were terms which were missed initially.



And they did. But that's not how Popper would view the events in question. And the problem of the first negative event remains.


It wasn't a problem, because there are testable criteria to verify that the experiment wasn't done correctly. Hence the original result of the experiment was itself falsified. You said this is precisely what the problem was. Again, the issue still comes down to falsification. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



Anyway, let us suppose that GPS readings start diverging from the predictions of general relativity. Does that mean GR is incorrect? No, it could mean that there are additional bodies or gravitational fields in the Solar System (Neptune was discovered by its gravitational effect). So it seems that GR is not falsifiable, since one could invent new bodies to fix the theory (this is something Lakatos understood).


It could mean a lot of things. That is why you use process of elimination, to resolve these issues, and you have other scientists replicate your results. The fact that a testable set of criteria exists remains. In fact, you were even kind enough to provide those criteria for factoring out other influences.



Right, you aren't familiar with the terms, which is fine, but it means your subsequent argument is confused. You seem to be saying - measure the probabilities, measure the state, square the state, then see if the two quantities match. But you can't measure the state.

No. I'm saying there are criteria that have been defined, and we can perform experiments against those criteria to see if everything matches up. That doesn't require that I understand what everything means, though I know what a wave function is.

My position does not rely on a precise understanding of the terms. Furthermore I find it despicable that you would try to use my intellectual honesty as a weapon against me. Especially since it is clear that my position stands regardless of whether I understand precisely what the Greek means.

The point remains that there is a set of verifiable criteria. If a theory predicts a result and that result is not observed then that theory is falsified. Using that same criteria we can verify whether experiments were performed accurately as well. Namely we can return to previous experiments and verify whether they were performed accurately. If not we can repeat them. The point is that there is a set of criteria we can test for.

Boy has this thread become derailed!

[Alexios]

Why did this need a trigger warning?

[Loony Le Fist]

Why did this need a trigger warning?

I was afraid someone might be offended by my cursing out of religion. I can always edit the title if you feel it is unnecessary. I'm starting the think that it might have been. How do others feel about this? I was just trying to err on the safe side.

[Loony Le Fist]

I removed the trigger warning. If anyone objects, just let me know and I'll put it back.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In the strictest sense nothing is provable only disprovable.

Here I must object that you're simply repeating the falsificationist credo. We've established that scientists regularly state that such-and-such theory has been proven by such-and-such experiment (or other developments in scientific theory). And you have not given us a reason to discard this usage, both current and relevant, in favour of what you call "the strictest sense". Sorry, Popper saying that it is so does not make it so, particularly since Popper held on to falsificationism due to his committment to a project - reducing scientific discovery to logical inference - that has shown itself an idealist pipe-dream.


It wasn't a problem, because there are testable criteria to verify that the experiment wasn't done correctly. Hence the original result of the experiment was itself falsified.

And here you run into problems because according to Popper, theories can be disproved, experiments can't. In fact the experiment was incorrect. That happens from time to time, either because the experimentalists botched it or because of external influence or because - and here is the really interesting part - the results have been interpreted incorrectly. But all of this is anathema to Popper. He thinks that the results of experiments are unquestionable - it is theory that has to "sink or swim", and if it sinks once, that's it.


It could mean a lot of things. That is why you use process of elimination, to resolve these issues, and you have other scientists replicate your results. The fact that a testable set of criteria exists remains. In fact, you were even kind enough to provide those criteria for factoring out other influences.

It could be a body in the Oort cloud. It could be a star that is too dim to be noticed by our current instruments. It could, after all, be composed of dark matter.

In fact, since an ostensibly "negative" result concerning general relativity (anomalous rotation curves, for example) could be explained either through general relativity being wrong (and e.g. TVS gravity being true) or through dark matter and similar objects, it seems that according to Popper (and implicitly you) general relativity is not a theory.


No. I'm saying there are criteria that have been defined, and we can perform experiments against those criteria to see if everything matches up. That doesn't require that I understand what everything means, though I know what a wave function is.

My position does not rely on a precise understanding of the terms. Furthermore I find it despicable that you would try to use my intellectual honesty as a weapon against me. Especially since it is clear that my position stands regardless of whether I understand precisely what the Greek means.

The point remains that there is a set of verifiable criteria. If a theory predicts a result and that result is not observed then that theory is falsified. Using that same criteria we can verify whether experiments were performed accurately as well. Namely we can return to previous experiments and verify whether they were performed accurately. If not we can repeat them. The point is that there is a set of criteria we can test for.

I am not "using your intellectual honesty as a weapon against you", I'm just noting that you don't seem to appreciate the problem. The Born rule tells us how to interpret the results of the experiment. It doesn't tell us that this measurable quantity and that measurable quantity are connected in such-and-such manner; it tells us how to connect the results of our calculations to the experimental data. It could be wrong - but there is not direct experimental test for that.


Boy has this thread become derailed!

I don't think so. Popper, after all, was not apolitical, and his falsificationism is explicitly a weapon against Marxism, as is all of analytic positivism. And the same impoverished, mechanicist, bourgeos standpoint that animated Popper's work animates the work of the "New Atheists".

[Loony Le Fist]

Here I must object that you're simply repeating the falsificationist credo. We've established that scientists regularly state that such-and-such theory has been proven by such-and-such experiment (or other developments in scientific theory). And you have not given us a reason to discard this usage, both current and relevant, in favour of what you call "the strictest sense".


When did I say we should discard this usage? I find that usage just fine. I'm just being clear that the very nature of the structure of reality prevents us from absolutely proving anything.



Sorry, Popper saying that it is so does not make it so, particularly since Popper held on to falsificationism due to his committment to a project - reducing scientific discovery to logical inference - that has shown itself an idealist pipe-dream.


Scientific discovery is about experimental confirmation. That's it.



And here you run into problems because according to Popper, theories can be disproved, experiments can't. In fact the experiment was incorrect. That happens from time to time, either because the experimentalists botched it or because of external influence or because - and here is the really interesting part - the results have been interpreted incorrectly. But all of this is anathema to Popper.


Who gives a flying fuck what Popper says about this or that! Seriously! :laugh: Fuck what Popper says. Popper doesn't define my position, I do!.

This isn't about Popper. This is about conducting science in a way that allows us to produce results and theories that adhere to observation.



He thinks that the results of experiments are unquestionable - it is theory that has to "sink or swim", and if it sinks once, that's it.


If it sinks and that result is verified and repeated, yes. Just because something is falsified doesn't mean it has to stay falsified. Our understanding can change. Of course that becomes less and less likely with repeated confirmation.



It could be a body in the Oort cloud. It could be a star that is too dim to be noticed by our current instruments. It could, after all, be composed of dark matter.


Sure. As long as there are ways to test for things we can devise experiments and get a more highly resolved picture of reality over time. The point is that there is falsifiable criteria that we can use to check theory against the fabric of the universe.



In fact, since an ostensibly "negative" result concerning general relativity (anomalous rotation curves, for example) could be explained either through general relativity being wrong (and e.g. TVS gravity being true) or through dark matter and similar objects, it seems that according to Popper (and implicitly you) general relativity is not a theory.


Again, I'm not getting how you are linking my position on falsifiability to this Popper dude! :laugh: How about I'll define my own positions, and you can ask me for more relevant details if I'm not making sense.



I am not "using your intellectual honesty as a weapon against you",


I didn't claim you did, I claimed you tried to. :grin:



I'm just noting that you don't seem to appreciate the problem. The Born rule tells us how to interpret the results of the experiment. It doesn't tell us that this measurable quantity and that measurable quantity are connected in such-and-such manner;


Right, but then you say,



it tells us how to connect the results of our calculations to the experimental data. It could be wrong - but there is not direct experimental test for that.


That is all we need. A theory only needs to produce the correct answers. If it does not produce the correct answers it is falsified.



I don't think so. Popper, after all, was not apolitical, and his falsificationism is explicitly a weapon against Marxism, as is all of analytic positivism. And the same impoverished, mechanicist, bourgeos standpoint that animated Popper's work animates the work of the "New Atheists".

Well Popper can suck a fart out of my asshole. I'm so sick of this damned Popper, that I think I'm going to have a bonfire with any and all literary works that he has authored.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[consuming negativity]

I disagree with the idea that being wrong about something means a person deserves to be mocked and ridiculed. Everybody is wrong about something, but nobody continues to believe things that they know aren't true, or think are harmful. And if you really haven't changed your view about /something/ in the last couple months it's because you've stopped bothering to learn new things. Sure, I agree completely that the Jesus Camp people are awful and are abusing their children. But since when was shaming a useful tool to prevent or stop child abuse? How is adopting the behavior of a schoolyard bully doing anything to improve the situation? Moreover, people like "the Amazing Atheist" will rant and rave about how awful Christmas & Easter Christians are, and then in their next video have an anti-feminist rant complete with a matching fedora. Why should I stick up for a clown like that just because he is, like most people, not a Christian? I agree entirely that Dawkins gets a bad rap, mainly from people who aren't familiar with him. But the majority of the movement that "claims" Dawkins are shitheads, and Christopher Hitchens was, in a word, unbearable.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

When did I say we should discard this usage? I find that usage just fine. I'm just being clear that the very nature of the structure of reality prevents us from absolutely proving anything.

Now that's one hell of a claim. Why should we accept it, particularly since you haven't argued for it?


Scientific discovery is about experimental confirmation. That's it.

Except, of course, "experimental confirmation" could mean any number of things.


Who gives a flying fuck what Popper says about this or that! Seriously! :laugh: Fuck what Popper says. Popper doesn't define my position, I do!.

Sure, and you happen to have defined it in a way that is indistinguishable from Popper's naive falsificationism, with all that entails.


Sure. As long as there are ways to test for things we can devise experiments and get a more highly resolved picture of reality over time. The point is that there is falsifiable criteria that we can use to check theory against the fabric of the universe.

Again, you've missed the point. Any result that would "disprove" GR on a falsificationist reading of the experimental data can be made compatible with GR by positing new entities. And dark matter is notoriously difficult to test for, more so because we have no idea what it is.


That is all we need. A theory only needs to produce the correct answers. If it does not produce the correct answers it is falsified.

And what answers are "correct"?


Well Popper can suck a fart out of my asshole. I'm so sick of this damned Popper, that I think I'm going to have a bonfire with any and all literary works that he has authored.

Let me put it this way: do you think Marxism is a science?

[Creative Destruction]

New Atheists are horrible.

[Црвена]

"New atheists," fail to recognise that the danger is not religious belief in itself, but the corrupt religious institutions that brainwash people and promote racism, sexism, homophobia, restrictions on freedom and violence against anyone who disagrees with them. If religious belief was an entirely individual matter (I am not advocating individualism in any way, just saying that society as a whole should have no religious or nonreligious belief and that spiritual matters are the only individual matters) then fundamentalists would have no way to develop cults and poison minds and there would be no way for them to do the awful things that they do.

[Loony Le Fist]

I disagree with the idea that being wrong about something means a person deserves to be mocked and ridiculed.


Absolutely agree. Simply being wrong about something certainly doesn't warrant mockery and/or ridicule. I surely did not intend to imply that it was.


Everybody is wrong about something, but nobody continues to believe things that they know aren't true, or think are harmful.


I think that some of these ideas require certain degree of self-delusion to believe. Though, I'd say I mostly agree.



And if you really haven't changed your view about /something/ in the last couple months it's because you've stopped bothering to learn new things. Sure, I agree completely that the Jesus Camp people are awful and are abusing their children. But since when was shaming a useful tool to prevent or stop child abuse? How is adopting the behavior of a schoolyard bully doing anything to improve the situation?


I completely understand where you are coming from. If there was a way to reach these people rationally, I would be glad to try. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

In my experience, the problem is that fundamentalist believers have been bullying around every kind of group for a very long time. Organized religion has been used as a tool to enforce social hierarchies for too long. I mean, it's not just that they are wrong. They actively work towards marginalizing particular groups of people for sectarian reasons.

Here's where my position on mockery and ridicule changes. In the US, the Christian right is part of the elite. They are part of the establishment that attempts to bully us into conforming to their cis-normative, capitalist, dominionist, imperialist, bigoted horse feces. This is why I think mockery is a valid response in these cases. I'm not saying all Christians should be openly ridiculed. Just the ones that are actively trying to take away the rights of women and LGBTQ individuals and receive money from public coffers to teach children lies about history and science, like Ken Ham. Frankly, I feel it is the only strategy to use against an adversary that is impossible to reason with. The only course of action in those cases is to go nuclear.

Perhaps the issue is rather personal, since I remember being shamed with hell as a child. I don't really feel sympathy for or have patience with fundamentalist, holy book beating, harriers.

I think that mockery and ridicule might sometimes be the only way to diffuse a highly ideological and headstrong adversary who is unwilling (or incapable) of being reasoned with. Some people need to have their egos deflated.



Moreover, people like "the Amazing Atheist" will rant and rave about how awful Christmas & Easter Christians are, and then in their next video have an anti-feminist rant complete with a matching fedora. Why should I stick up for a clown like that just because he is, like most people, not a Christian?


Well I certainly don't think anyone should stick up for the so-called Amazing Atheist. That dude's a douche nozzle. :laugh:

However, I think that there are New Atheists who we could have points of agreement with. Indeed I linked to Dawkins in this post, and even included a quote from him that appears to confirm that he is critical of free-markets. I'm just saying that we shouldn't group all New Atheists into the same category. When we do that, we make the same mistake that our adversaries make when they think we are all MLs or Tankies. :laugh:



I agree entirely that Dawkins gets a bad rap, mainly from people who aren't familiar with him. But the majority of the movement that "claims" Dawkins are shitheads, and Christopher Hitchens was, in a word, unbearable.

Well Hitchens became quite the douche in his old age. His positions on the Iraq War are absurd. There was never any justification, and I just don't see where he pulled that out of. I found his position on it odd, considering that I remember him speaking very fondly of Noam Chomsky when he was younger.

Sam Harris is even worse. I can't really stand him. Ironically, despite calling himself a skeptic, he seems to subscribe to some kind of spiritual voodoo crap. Additionally, his position on torture is absolutely odious.

[Loony Le Fist]

Now that's one hell of a claim. Why should we accept it, particularly since you haven't argued for it?


Well think about it a minute. What can you empirically prove absolutely? You can prove something within a particular context or abstract field of study (like math or logic). I know you are eager to jump on whatever cracks you might find in my argument, and I might be have been too eager with my assertion. After all, there are some logical absolutes that do carry over in the real world. For example, an object cannot be all red and all black at the same time, for instance. Or an object cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. However, besides those basic logical axioms, real empirical things can't be true in the absolute sense. They can only be confirmed enough experimentally to be accepted as truth.



Except, of course, "experimental confirmation" could mean any number of things.


Not really. It means that there has been a large set of replication experiments performed and they all seem to both confirm the theory and not falsify the theory.



Sure, and you happen to have defined it in a way that is indistinguishable from Popper's naive falsificationism, with all that entails.


Not really. From what you have said, it seems that Popper is too quick to render things disproved. Also, he does not apply falsifiability to experiments too. Experiments are falsifiable as well, because they are subject to certain criteria. For example, if the noise exceeds the signal then the experiment must be void.



Again, you've missed the point. Any result that would "disprove" GR on a falsificationist reading of the experimental data can be made compatible with GR by positing new entities. And dark matter is notoriously difficult to test for, more so because we have no idea what it is.


No it would not. That falsification would need to be confirmed and the results verified before it would be accepted.



And what answers are "correct"?


If a theory predicts certain results and we get them without contradictory results, we can say to have confirmed the theory. We can raise our confidence in the accuracy of a theory by simply repeating the experiment. We call those confirmed answers correct, with differing levels of confidence depending on the number of times they've been confirmed.



Let me put it this way: do you think Marxism is a science?

No.

[Loony Le Fist]

New Atheists are horrible.

I thought you might say that. :laugh:

[dodger]

In the 1840s, Hindu priests complained to Charles James Napier (then Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India) about the prohibition of suttee by British authorities. Suttee was the custom of burning widows alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands. According to Napier’s brother William, this is how he replied:


“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

[Armchair Partisan]

...This thread is a year old. That quote is funny, but was it worth necroing the thread for that?

[Comrade Jacob]

Dead thread. But still new atheists are just as fundamentalist as hardcore religious people. New atheists are loud and annoying.

[Loony Le Fist]

Dead thread. But still new atheists are just as fundamentalist as hardcore religious people. New atheists are loud and annoying.

I think its much more acceptable to be fundamentalist about things you can demonstrate with science than it is to be fundamentalist about things that are most certainly bullshit. It's an unfair comparison.

[Armchair Partisan]

New atheists are loud and annoying.

What other group have I heard those two particular adjectives about... something involving women IIRC...

I reiterate what I said in another thread - it may be my atheist bias, but I honestly don't care about how arrogant they are about dispelling Christian myths and fighting for secularism. The real problem with the New Atheists is that they are not so much about atheism anymore as about opposing various progressive moments like feminism and, well, socialism - and about racist bigotry too, quite often. They are essentially the secular version of the Republican Party, a unifying banner for those who are secular and atheist, but socially reactionary. That's the niche they fill.

[BIXX]

In the 1840s, Hindu priests complained to Charles James Napier (then Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India) about the prohibition of suttee by British authorities. Suttee was the custom of burning widows alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands. According to Napier’s brother William, this is how he replied:

What he said is false though his country hated witches

[dodger]

What he said is false though his country hated witches

The practice still goes on today albeit isolated cases. Can't see why you say Napier was false. Placenta.

[Invader Zim]

What he said is false though his country hated witches

Are you attempting to suggest that British colonial rule did not involve brutal executions - or, specifically, that they did not hang witch burners?

[BIXX]

Are you attempting to suggest that British colonial rule did not involve brutal executions - or, specifically, that they did not hang witch burners?

The second one.

[dodger]

http://wcd.nic.in/commissionofsatiprevention.htm

THE COMMISSION OF SATI (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987

(No. 3of 1988)



An Act to provide for the more effective prevention of the commission of sati and its glorification and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Whereas sati or the burning or burying alive of widows or women is revolting to the feelings of human nature and nowhere enjoined by any of the religions of India as an imperative duty;

And whereas it is necessary to take more effective measure to prevent the commission of sati and its glorification;

Be it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-eighth Year of Republic of India as follows:

Click on the link above for full details of 1987 Act. Seems Napiers dire threat of the gallows and confiscation of property was not enough to completely stop the practice. In Nepal law was enacted banning Sati, 1920.

[The Disillusionist]

The world is full of assholes trying to exploit each other. You don't have to have power to be one of these assholes. This affects relationships between pretty much every group of people on the planet. No one really cares about organized religion. Not even religious people. It's all about having an excuse to hate other people for personal gain/group cohesion/a sense of superiority, a trap that militant atheists (and pretty much every other militant group of any kind) have fallen into.

Oh, and atheism isn't supported or refuted by science. It's a philosophy, and it really has nothing to do with the present reality or data. Chances are very good that no one will ever prove or disprove the existence of any kind of god. To pretend that atheism is essentially the "thinking man's religion," supported by science, is just another consequence of that false sense of superiority I just mentioned. I write this as an atheist.

[Rafiq]

The idea of a god is sustained by powers and notions fundamentally outside of the field of scientific inquiry, which is precisely why science supports atheism. In other words, if the beliefs of theists were actually subjugated to the standards of scientific inquiry, there could be no god. And it was Engels who observed that the militant working class at the time was not only atheist in theory, but atheist in practice - without a god.

The notion that the idea of a god can actually be sustained, and remain compatible with "science" is exactly why these empiricists have been partially responsible for the introduction of all sorts of drivel into "science". They do not respect science insofar as they consider its employment to simply "have its place" - and that is simply outside the domain of the church, "politics" and so on. The existence of a god, therefore, can be disproved - in the practical sense by destroying the conditions from which the idea of a god is derived and then sustained, which is the absence of social consciousness.

Why do these empiricists talk as though in order to "disprove" the idea of a god, we actually have to, physically and empirically demonstrate its impossibility? Why do they not hold to the same standard the existence of, say, an invisible banana man - from a scientific perspective? Easy, because no sane person would argue for its existence, an invisible banana man is not the total encapsulation of our relations to life and production. They like to prattle of "hard science" and yet they can take the notion of a god seriously precisely because they are bound by social considerations.

[The Disillusionist]

The idea of a god is sustained by powers and notions fundamentally outside of the field of scientific inquiry, which is precisely why science supports atheism. In other words, if the beliefs of theists were actually subjugated to the standards of scientific inquiry, there could be no god. And it was Engels who observed that the militant working class at the time was not only atheist in theory, but atheist in practice - without a god.

The notion that the idea of a god can actually be sustained, and remain compatible with "science" is exactly why these empiricists have been partially responsible for the introduction of all sorts of drivel into "science". They do not respect science insofar as they consider its employment to simply "have its place" - and that is simply outside the domain of the church, "politics" and so on. The existence of a god, therefore, can be disproved - in the practical sense by destroying the conditions from which the idea of a god is derived and then sustained, which is the absence of social consciousness.

Why do these empiricists talk as though in order to "disprove" the idea of a god, we actually have to, physically and empirically demonstrate its impossibility? Why do they not hold to the same standard the existence of, say, an invisible banana man - from a scientific perspective? Easy, because no sane person would argue for its existence, an invisible banana man is not the total encapsulation of our relations to life and production. They like to prattle of "hard science" and yet they can take the notion of a god seriously precisely because they are bound by social considerations.

Engels didn't know what he was talking about. Neither the absence nor the existence of a god has any relevance to science. If you consider Marxist speculation to be science, then sure, I guess you've got a point, but in terms of real science, it is not possible to observe or deduce the existence or non-existence of god. Theism and atheism are both speculative philosophies. David Hume was the one who said that skepticism of any outcome regarding any kind of deity was the only truly scientific approach.

The existence of an invisible banana man is also outside of the measuring capabilities of science, so skepticism of any outcome is the best approach there as well. To claim that one outcome should be reached over the other is unscientific bias, no matter which outcome you root for.

This kind of bias regarding "science" is exactly what you attack theists for, but you just did it yourself, on a small scale. And let's not pretend that religion is the only thing that has ever screwed up science through bias. I know a few Marxists who will adamantly insist that the abolition of the family under Communism is a scientific theory, despite the fact that it is completely unmeasurable and thus completely speculative. It's all religion to me. There's nothing wrong with religion, it just shouldn't be allowed into science.

By the way, I'm taking a very traditional empiricist approach here (it's hard to get much more empiricist than Hume), and yet you can see that my argument in no way supports the introduction of any kind of speculation or religion into science. In fact, my epistemology is far less tolerant of speculation and religion than yours.

[Rafiq]

This kind of bias regarding "science" is exactly what you attack theists for, but you just did it yourself, on a small scale. And let's not pretend that religion is the only thing that has ever screwed up science through bias. I know a few Marxists who will adamantly insist that the abolition of the family under Communism is a scientific theory, despite the fact that it is completely unmeasurable and thus completely speculative. It's all religion to me. There's nothing wrong with religion, it just shouldn't be allowed into science.


That is largely because what qualifies as "science" in your mind has its basis on its limitations in evaluating other domains of human thought - which is precisely why it is bourgeois science: It can only conceive natural science (and, its logical conclusions in other domains) as "true science". And yet, there are things within reach of scientific inquiry, within reach of being knowable that are designated as unknowable ideologically by "scientists" such as yourself. This is precisely the point: It has nothing to do with bias, I have never made any pretense to criticizing religion in science in terms of "bias", my point was that empiricism allows for ideas that are rooted in inherently unscientific notions to make themselves "compatible" with science - this is why it is epistemology flawed, and this is why all this drivel has allowed itself to seep into the sciences in the 21st century (On large part because of, for example, positivist dogma to be simply unable to contain, properly explain or conceive quantum mechanics outside of what they conceive as "metaphysics"). Is this basic question: Why do people believe fundamentally outside of the domain of scientific inquiry? Likewise with regards to the family, what sustains it, and so on. The fact of the matter is that recognizing that the family unit is irrevocably bound up with relations of private property is scientific, even if it cannot be reducible to mere numbers (an impossible demand, which you yourself know). Science is nothing more than the systematized means of acquiring knowledge, in contrast to ideology (i.e. ideology makes X unknowable, but still designates it in practice).

Meanwhile, when the ideological predispositions to a god are subject to scientific inquiry, and they can be - beyond the mere empirical implications of them - the notion of a god is entirely destroyed. So incapable of even conceiving this as an argument, that you project your idioitc epistemological assumptions onto me, i.e. the cliche notion that there is "objective science" which is "distorted" by biases. Interestingly enough, you accuse me of being a postmodernist, but relativism by in part is nothing more than the logical conclusion of this idealism - that there is no "objective science" and that everything is bias, therefore truth does not exist.

Meanwhile, Marxists recognize that while objective truth exists, it hinges upon fundamental "biases", one cannot know objective truth without being "biased", because conceiving truth is itself is practically contingent upon the relation between the subject and the world around him - it is solely a practical question. That is the point. But my point was much more modest than this, much simpler: A "god" is only conceived as "not disprovable" if its reality is in one way or another respected, it totally ignores the fact that the idea of a god has nothing to do with its empirical feasibility but ideological presumptions, i.e. a god can only be conceived as being "Just as possibly real as iti s possibly not real" if the foundations which sustain the idea are not properly understood. Thus lies the hypocrisy of the empiricist philistines - they will hark on about how this or that is 'unscientific' and yet they will in action subscribe to CONCEIVABLY unscientific notions. They do not respect science insofar as they don't consider it to have all-encompassing power.

With all the talk of Marxism being "biased" and an ideology, Marxism, and only Marxism is the demonstration that the ideology of Communism is the ideology in the last instance, that while the ideological foundations of bourgeois thought can be critically evaluated, the unknowable horizon of Communism cannot because it has not happened yet. Marxism converts that which would otherwise be designated ideologically into being scientifically knowable. This is why it is less ideological. Nothing so brilliant as Kapital could have been concieved without the ideological basis of Communism, Marx's opposition to capitalism is what allowed him to critically evaluate it in a way that made him free from subconsciously reproducing it.

If we conceive ideas themselves, and subjectivity as a part of the scientifically knowable domain, then we can easily see how the notion of an invisible banana man can be disproved scientifically, because what sustains the idea cannot be a prediction of its empirical viability, but something else entirely. Of course the EMPIRICAL EXISTENCE of the banana man cannot be subject to scientific evaluation, but to even TEST this ASSUMES that the invisible banana man can in fact be real (just as it might not be real). Likewise, to even THINK a god COULD exist has its basis in its ideological significance and power - otherwise, it would be no more taken seriously as the invisible banana man. So arrogantly you claim "Engels' didn't know what he was talking about", but the fact of the matter is that he was correct -the militant workers movement WAS without a god, in practice they were beyond even the predisposition which made them even bother with it. Bourgeois atheism, as Marx said, is just an ABSTRACTION of an inherent, underlying theism.

I also think it's funny that you bring up Engels and the family though: Because it is solely the absence of being able to critically evaluate the family that its "timeless" nature is actually conceived, Engels's notion that it would disappear in Communism IS scientific insofar as the foundations of the family are scientifically conceived. As I demonstrated in a previous thread. We can also see how the immediate events following the October revolution, wherein communal kitchens and communal rearing were the norm. We can also, scientifically see how their disappearance had nothing to do with their "unnatural" nature but how they correlated with the waning of power by the proletariat, its inapplicability in the peasant majority countryside and the necessity to establish the basis of the family in a precarious society stuck in the process of (bourgeois) modernization. Even the absolute decline of the petty bourgeois Kibbutzim (and its child rearing methods) in Israel was owed solely to the necessity of their conformity to wider Israeli capitalist society and their privatization.

[Red Red Chile]

By showing evolution to be a theory Popper was trying to create a positive framework for scientific method. Saying something is a 'theory' does not discredit it if it's the best theory available. Natural selection is the best theory we have and every bit of data we have corroborates it. You can quibble over the lack of transitional forms but there are explanations for that. The unit of selection (gene? organism? meme? family? class?) is still up for debate. Most likely it's all of these things.

[Rafiq]

By showing evolution to be a theory Popper was trying to create a positive framework for scientific method. Saying something is a 'theory' does not discredit it if it's the best theory available. Natural selection is the best theory we have and every bit of data we have corroborates it. You can quibble over the lack of transitional forms but there are explanations for that. The unit of selection (gene? organism? meme? family? class?) is still up for debate. Most likely it's all of these things.

This is addressed here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/no-spiritual-beliefs-t193286/index.html?p=2865896#post2865896

If there is an admin, can they please close this thread, which is half a year old, which was clearly started by Red Red chile to troll us. There is no reason for this thread to be revived, when virtually the same kind of controversy is in another thread. Thanks.

[Sentinel]

Red Red Chile, do not necro old threads. That merely creates confusion as users that posted in them aren't necessarily following them anymore.

Thread closed.