Legitimate argument on the existence of god?

[Samuel]

I was involved with a discussion with a pretty die-hard Christian the other day, and I was thinking that it may be completely impossible to argue on their grounds against the existence of god, and there is no way they would argue on any scientific grounds.

But then I came up with this pattern. Can anyone find any holes in it? If not, it looks like there may be a real way to counter a christian's arguments.

when we assume that god is real, we accept that:
god is all powerful
god is all benevolent and forgiving
god is all knowing
god is all good

as per the bible, we also would accept:
evil exists

if god is all knowing, all powerful, and all good, he in his benevolence would eliminate evil; yet evil on earth persists

therefore god does not exist

comments?

[Marsella]

I suspect the Christian response would be to say 'God gave us free will...it is human's fault if there is evil...'

[Lynx]

They would not accept that assumption. Original Sin, Free Will require it to exist on Earth. There is supposed to be no evil in Heaven, and nothing but evil in Hell.

Belief in God is an act of faith.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am afraid this belongs in Religion.

Hint on a solution: Your premisses are vague. For example, "All powerful" -- what does that mean? God can do anything? But, then what in turn does that mean?

Sophisticated Christians respond to such arguments by pointing out that atheists set up unrealistic criteria for the 'anything' that God can do, and then sit back and think they have disproved his existence that way.

Not so, for we have no idea what constitutes the 'anything' that god can or cannot do. This is because god is beyond our comprehension.

The same goes for all your other "all" premisses.

This is not to make any concessions to theists, since you will only defeat theism by a social revolution, not an argument (that is, belief in god has social causes, not intellectual ones), but you certainly won't if you operate with defective ideas about god.

Now, since there are no rational reasons to believe in god, it is important to attack this from a completely new angle -- one that has been ignored for 2500 years (except, the seeds of this new attack can be found in Feuerbach).

This will not eliminate theism, but it will take the hot air out of talk about god.

What is this new approach?

Ah, that would be telling... :)

[black magick hustla]

I think the sophisticated Christians are not Aquinas-type sophists who try to rationalize the existence of God.

I think that in order to be a sophisticated Christian, you need to become a "knight of faith", I.E. understand that faith is absurd, and so is God.

My favorite Christian is Kierkergaard. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot, that must mean you have never read one of his books -- or if you did, how did you stay awake? :blink:

[Lynx]

Take one leap of faith and call me in the morning...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:41 am
My favorite Christian is Kierkergaard. :)
Mine's Tolstoy.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 04:43 am
Marmot, that must mean you have never read one of his books -- or if you did, how did you stay awake? :blink:
I actually bought an anthology of existentialism. I had a hard time understanding it, but I also had some reading guides with me. The books had some excerpts for Kierkergaard.

The thing about Kierkergaard is that he never constructed philosophical systems, so he never meant what he said to be "philosophy", I.E. his books were more of a confession than anything else.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, you had diluted Kierkegaard -- that explains it!

Had you taken the pure stuff, you'd hate the guy.

What a wind bag!

Page after page of nothing. He takes 500 pages to say what you could in two. The only reason he is liked is becasue he was writing at the same time as the German Idealists, next to whom even a telephone directory is preferable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

My favourite Christian is a lapsed one... :o

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible. Does an omniscient god have the omnipotence to change it's future mind? Think about it carefully.

As to the main thrust of the OP, the usual excuse is free will. This is in spite of the fact that very few people choose to be evil, and also ignores "natural" evil like natural disasters etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unfortunately for you Noxion, no one has been able to define these two obscure terms in a way that suggests that the ones attmpting to do so have not already met god.

Thus vitiating the exercise.

I did try to point this out to you, but as usual you blundered on...

[JimFar]

Usually theists attempt to get around such arguments by redefining notions like omnipotence and omniscience. Thus, Aquinas's omnipotent God, we are told, could not violate the laws of Aristotelean logic, create another God, make the angles of a triangle add up to anything else other than the sum of two right angles, and so forth. Some contemporary theistic philosophers and theologians will argue that an omniscient God cannot know beforehand which actions we will choose in the future through exercising our own free will. And the list goes on and on. If you feel free to redefine concepts like "omniscience", "omnipotence", "goodness", "free will", etc. anyway that you wish, then you can always render your theological position immune to the threat of falsification or refutation. But then we might ask what substance does such a position actually have. Ultimately, intellectual argument is unlikely to dissuade most theists, unless they are unusually logical and intellectually honest. Most religious believers could not give a crap over Aquinas's five ways of proving the existence of God, or what not. The persistence of religious belief in today's world can be traced to discernible social causes, and unless those causes are dealt with, religion will go on and on.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, Jim, and one and all would be have been imposing a new convention upon the use of the word 'god', which would be impossible to justify, making all such endeavours a waste of time.

Not that that would have stopped them, but it can stop us.

[Samuel]

so we are handicapped in these arguments by our own logical thought processes. By accepting god, those we argue against are willing to compromise all logic to maintain their passions.

No real way to win, I guess. Just gotta let generations be generations and drift towards moderation, eh?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not really. We should be militant atheists, but have no illusions that we can shift people away from religion.

It will take social change to do that.

And our capacity to reason is not a handicap, or it is no more than our capacity to eat, breath or sleep.

The problem is that believers in 'god' have concocted a 'concept'/word to which no sense can be given, not even by them, and on their own admission.

In that case, it is not possible to decide what they are trying to show exists, or toward what their beliefs are aimed.

[synthesis]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus

There is, of course, one problem with this argument. Christians tend to argue that only the second question is true valid.

They argue that God does not prevent evil because if everything was "good", then there would be no "evil" to contrast it with, thus totally eliminating the concept of "good" in the first place.

The origin, of course, is the need to rationalize a God who is argued to have good intentions when faced with a world full of ungodly things.

[RebelDog]

''God cannot exist if Auschwitz exists.''
Primo Levi

Even if we were to somehow concede that god exists, we would have to conclude he is a vengeful, sadistic, spiteful god and therefore not to be worshiped but destroyed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

These sound-bites might look good to you two, but, as I pointed out above, there is no question-begging way of defining 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient'.

And, if it took Auschwitz to convince Primo Levi there was no god, does that mean that up to then he believed in him, and did so despite the massacre of the Armenians, despite the Irish Potato Famine, the Bengal Famine, the mass slaughter of the peasants in Russia, the Black Dreath...?

Levi's comment is thus stupid beyond belief.

Now, one or two of you are using your own invented categories to try to form an idiosyncratic concept of 'god', and then, because that does not match another equally idiosyncratic concept of 'god' that you have also concocted, reckon 'he' does not exist. But, all this demonstrates is that you have no idea what 'god' is, not that 'he' does not exist.

It's like trying to prove life on other planets does not exist by attacking the someone's belief in Big Foot.

Wrong target comrades!

In doing this, you are playing into the hands of the theists, who can, of course, pack into their notion of 'god' whatever they want, and this 2500 year-old 'debate' will just rumble on, with you lot having got nowhere.

The best way to attack theists is to use their own ideas against them, not to try to impose ideas they do not accept onto an artificial concept of 'god', imagining that you can win an easy and quick victory as a result.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And, if it took Auschwitz to convince Primo Levi there was no god, does that mean that up to then he believed in him, and did so despite the massacre of the Armenians, despite the Irish Potato Famine, the Bengal Famine, the mass slaughter of the peasants in Russia, the Black Dreath...?
Rosa, surely you should know that 'God cannot exist if Auschwitz exists' does not mean that 'God must exist if Auschwitz does not exist'?

[JimFar]

I think that Rosa's point is that we should realize that theists when they attempt to theorize concerning the nature and existence of a deity are simply engaging in word games since they are simply positing concepts that are without meaning, that in fact are better characterized as pseudo-concepts.

The philosopher Adolf Grunbaum once wrote (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/adolf_grunbaum/poverty.html) concerning the theologies of people like Paul Tillich, Martin Buber, and Karl Barth:

“Worse still, some proposed reconstructions of theism turn its doctrines into babble. Thus, what is one to make of Paul Tillich’s view that the assertion of the existence of God is meaningless, rather than false, and of Martin Buber’s incoherent claim that God does not exist per se but only in the I-Thou context of human beings? Buber seems to make God a mere figment of the human imagination à la Feuerbach. Indeed, at the hands of Karl Barth’s “wholly other” God, and of Moses Maimonides’s denial that any humanly conceivable properties at all can be predicated of God (the via negative), all the inveterate contorted God-talk becomes at best a vast circumlocutory sham, if not just gibberish.”

In fact Grunbaum's points can be extended further. What he says about Tillich et al. applies to almost any form of sophisticated theology whether modern or not. These people render their theological positions immune to refutation at the cost of stripping them of any possible cognitive meaning. Intellectually, the battle against theism requires a combination of the insights of both Hume and Feuerbach, but in the end the religion will only be defeated through social change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


Rosa, surely you should know that 'God cannot exist if Auschwitz exists' does not mean that 'God must exist if Auschwitz does not exist'?

Indeed, I do, but I also know that to argue from the crimes committed at Auschwitz to the non-existence of 'god' is to to display uncommoin stupidity (and for the reasons I gave).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for those comments Jim, but my argument is not quite this.

I will not elaborate it here (I have merely hinted at it above).

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:22 pm
Omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible. Does an omniscient god have the omnipotence to change it's future mind? Think about it carefully.

I disagree. If God exists in all things, this logically includes a dimenstion of time (assumign any argument about future or past) and thusly can "change its future mind." You might as a similar question: is the collective sum of all matter both all -encompassing and all - powerful? If it were, it could change its future existance - but if it weren't, it would not have power that exists (this assumes power as derivitive of said matter, ala thought from god).


As to the main thrust of the OP, the usual excuse is free will. This is in spite of the fact that very few people choose to be evil, and also ignores "natural" evil like natural disasters etc.
...often referred to as "acts of god," which is supposed to be all - benevolent.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean, how can you possibly know all this about an incomprehensible 'being', that is, if we can say even this much about 'god'?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 04:15 am
Dean, how can you possibly know all this about an incomprehensible 'being', that is, if we can say even this much about 'god'?
My point is that the two concepts - all-knowing and all-capable - are not impossible as descriptions of one thing, because they are just the same as omnipotence is to a whole body of mass. Make no maistake; I'm not claiming that this concept of a god is true, or arguing about other assumptions about the entity, only that thw two concepts described are not incompatible.

[Lynx]

Refuting faith sounds like so much work! If only we had a peer reviewed scientific theory confirming that God does not exist. Do we?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean, and my point was that these terms "all-knowing and all-capable" are far too vague to do anything with.

In that case, you cannot possibly know whether or not they are comaptible.

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

Lynx: God is not an object that science can tell us anything about -- 'he/she/it' is not like an undiscovered planet, or fundamental particle.

As I noted above, if you think otherwise you are addressing the wrong subject.

[pusher robot]

Rosa is definitely right about this.

The topic of the existence or nonexistence of God is not one that can be debated using reason, since God is explicitly posited to be supernatural. It's like debating whether or not we are all living in the Matrix. Because it depends information that is UNKNOWABLE in our universe, it is fundamentally impossible to either prove or disprove. Not just "difficult," mind you. IMPOSSIBLE.

You should instead focus argument on the EFFECTS of the belief or nonbelief of God, which definitely do have impacts on the way people think and behave.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 08:41 am
Dean, and my point was that these terms "all-knowing and all-capable" are far too vague to do anything with.

In that case, you cannot possibly know whether or not they are comaptible.
All knowing = knows all, all capable = capable of all.

In oither words, knowing all things and capable of all that is possible. The terms are not vague, what they reference is vague. Of course you'd be an idiot to claim some entity or creature is all knowing and all capable, but that's not what I'm arguing; i was just arguing against the point that the two are incompatible.

Maybe 'all capable' is too vauge of itself, but a simple definition - like the above - puts a good handle on it.

Have you heard the ters before? Were you just as confused before?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


All knowing = knows all, all capable = capable of all.

In other words, knowing all things and capable of all that is possible. The terms are not vague, what they reference is vague. Of course you'd be an idiot to claim some entity or creature is all knowing and all capable, but that's not what I'm arguing; i was just arguing against the point that the two are incompatible.


This is no use. You have here what we call an 'unrestricted' quantifier. What is the scope of this 'all'?

As I asserted earlier, as soon as you try to say what this 'all' includes and/or excludes, you will be imposing on 'god' something 'he/she/it' might not have, or which suggests you have knowledge of the incomprehensible (which 'god' is, so we are told), which would in turn mean that either 'god' is not incomprehensible, or you are 'god'.

Adding the rider "knowing all things and capable of all that is possible" is no use, for what is 'possible' for 'god'?

You cannot possibly know yourself this unless you know the incomprehensible, again.

So, once more, you cannot know these terms are compatible, for you haven't a clue what they include or exclude.


Have you heard the ters before? Were you just as confused before?

Since you are the one who cannot type, I rather suspect it is you who is confused.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 04:41 am
Lynx: God is not an object that science can tell us anything about -- 'he/she/it' is not like an undiscovered planet, or fundamental particle.

As I noted above, if you think otherwise you are addressing the wrong subject.
If science cannot tell me anything about God, then what legitimate argument am I left with? Is my lack of faith more legitimate than someone's current faith?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


If science cannot tell me anything about God, then what legitimate argument am I left with? Is my lack of faith more legitimate than someone's current faith?

I am sorry, but this is far too confused for me to do anything with.

[Lynx]

The title of this thread: Legitimate argument on the existence of god?
You say argument based on science is out. You have dismissed other more semantic arguments. What other type of argument is there?

[Zurdito]

you can't prove a negative. it's up to christians to prove God, not us to disprove it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


you can't prove a negative. it's up to christians to prove God, not us to disprove it.

You tried that old soar out out on an earlier thread, where you were shown it was incorrect and that it is very easy to prove a negative.

What you mean is you cannot prove a falsehood.

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

Lynx:


You say argument based on science is out. You have dismissed other more semantic arguments. What other type of argument is there?

There are philosophical and theologial arguments, not that I am advocating either.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 09:34 pm
Z:


you can't prove a negative. it's up to christians to prove God, not us to disprove it.

You tried that old soar out out on an earlier thread, where you were shown it was incorrect and that it is very easy to prove a negative.

What you mean is you cannot prove a falsehood.
do you mean that it's impossible to prove something is false, or that it's impossible to prove something true if it's false?

either way, do you think it's possible to disprove the existence of God? I don't think it's possible, any more than I could disprove that pigs can fly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


do you mean that it's impossible to prove something is false, or that it's impossible to prove something true if it's false?

Either or both.


either way, do you think it's possible to disprove the existence of God? I don't think it's possible, any more than I could disprove that pigs can fly.

That pigs can fly is false, that is what you cannot prove it.

But, as I showed you in the Stalin on Materialism thread, it is very easy to prove a negative.

You must not confuse negatives with falsehoods.

Negation is what we do to sentences; falsehood is decided by the way the world is independently of us.

Here it is again:


Z:


"you can't prove a negative"

Not so. This is a clichéd response made by those who know very little logic.

But, it is very easy to prove a negative in science, mathematics, logic and everyday life.

You mean, "You can't prove a falsehood."

Example 1: I claim it is not raining. You look outside and tell me "Yes, you are right. It's not raining."

Example 2: A scientist claims the story in Genesis is not correct. Along comes Darwin, and proves her right; Genesis is incorrect.

Example 3: A mathematician claims that the primes are not finite in number. Pythagoras comes along and prove her right too. The primes are not finite.

There are countless more of these.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292419835 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73382&view=findpost&p=1292419835)

[Dean]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 05:54 pm
Dean:


All knowing = knows all, all capable = capable of all.

In other words, knowing all things and capable of all that is possible. The terms are not vague, what they reference is vague. Of course you'd be an idiot to claim some entity or creature is all knowing and all capable, but that's not what I'm arguing; i was just arguing against the point that the two are incompatible.


This is no use. You have here what we call an 'unrestricted' quantifier. What is the scope of this 'all'?
"All" encapsulates everything. I'm not making a scientific point here; if I were, I would be goign into issues on quantum physics, infinity theory, etc.; instead, I'm simply trying to point out that something can be all-knowing and all-capable, theoretically. If I were judging it scientifically, I would have no basis to begin, because this is a philosophical, hypothetical issue. In other words, it is supernatural and unscientific to say "if you saw a pink elephant, you would know it was pink" but I think it is obviously a true statement (assuming no colorblindedness or related problems).



As I asserted earlier, as soon as you try to say what this 'all' includes and/or excludes, you will be imposing on 'god' something 'he/she/it' might not have, or which suggests you have knowledge of the incomprehensible (which 'god' is, so we are told), which would in turn mean that either 'god' is not incomprehensible, or you are 'god'.
But I didn't get into that point. Maybe I'm God, maybe it is incomprehensible, and maybe (most likely) there is no God. My point is that, theoretically, assuming no other limits or assertions on the behavior or existance of God, it can be all-knowing and all-capable - simply that the two concepts are not exclusory in any way of each other.


Adding the rider "knowing all things and capable of all that is possible" is no use, for what is 'possible' for 'god'?
I usually start my consideration of any "god" figure as if it were the entire universe, everything, or a deity in the sky. Here, if you take the former as a consideration, it is easy to make good sense of it. The only possible things are thing sthat can exist as actions in the confines of the universe; what is all-capable then? Clearly, the universe, since all that can or does happen happens within, of and by the universe.


You cannot possibly know yourself this unless you know the incomprehensible, again.

So, once more, you cannot know these terms are compatible, for you haven't a clue what they include or exclude.
The entire universe is incomprehensible, but so too is any single bit of data, given we cannot be 100% certain of anything. My point here is to describe a theoretical existence.

You might also say that since we don't understand quantum physics, we cannot accurately make any assertions about atomic structure, molecules, cells, organs, etc., but there are data and ideas we can utilize as theoretical concepts. DO I have to understand the existance of all molecules in my motherboard to understand how the BIOS works? must I understand the nuances of each human being to understand society? To master either totally, sure, but to understand in general terms, a fraction of knowledge may be adequate.



Have you heard the ters before? Were you just as confused before?

Since you are the one who cannot type, I rather suspect it is you who is confused.
Cute.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


"All" encapsulates everything.

But this just transfers the ambiguity onto "everything", and you are no further forward.


My point is that, theoretically, assuming no other limits or assertions on the behavior or existance of God, it can be all-knowing and all-capable - simply that the two concepts are not exclusory in any way of each other.

And once again, and to repeat: as I asserted earlier, as soon as you try to say what this 'all' includes and/or excludes, you will be imposing on 'god' something 'he/she/it' might not have, or which suggests you have knowledge of the incomprehensible (which 'god' is, so we are told), which would in turn mean that either 'god' is not incomprehensible, or you are 'god'.

Your latest dead-end with "everything" just underlines this.


The entire universe is incomprehensible, but so too is any single bit of data, given we cannot be 100% certain of anything. My point here is to describe a theoretical existence.

Are you 100% certain of this?


You might also say that since we don't understand quantum physics, we cannot accurately make any assertions about atomic structure, molecules, cells, organs, etc., but there are data and ideas we can utilize as theoretical concepts. DO I have to understand the existance of all molecules in my motherboard to understand how the BIOS works? must I understand the nuances of each human being to understand society? To master either totally, sure, but to understand in general terms, a fraction of knowledge may be adequate.

You are confusing a contingent lack of understanding with something that is intrinsically incomprehensible.


Cute.

Lay off the insults, and you won't get any in return.

[Lynx]

I'm willing to consider philosophical and teleological arguments so long as they lead to something more substantive than a difference of opinion.
Until then, I reserve judgment on the existence of God.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx, I am not trying to argue for the existence of 'god' (I am a militant atheist!); what I am trying to do here is persuade posters that the traditional arguments atheists use (like those you find in Dawkins, etc.) play into the hands of theists.

[Lynx]

I recognize that. Feel free to expand on alternative arguments or post a link to one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I will, one day -- but I have too much other work to do.

I came across a web-site a while back that contained a simplified version of my approach. I'll try to find it again, and post a link

[Dean]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 12:54 am
Your latest dead-end with "everything" just underlines this.
And I view you not being able to grip the concept of terminology referring to a wholistic, all-encompassing value, or attempting to claim that all arguments which refer to an 'everything' as unviable, as a defeatist "dead-end." My arguments would have the exact same meaning if 'everything' referred only to a single room, and I think that's pretty clear. If you continue to refuse to accept that a theoretical argument can be made about material, fine, but don't pretend that I'm at some "dead end" because I utilize a term you can't seem to handle.

Really, you've made an argument about two concepts into a semantic one, then when the terms are well enough defined you attack their chosen objects, which is silly in the context. I'd appreciate it if you tried to be productive in your discussions, and I know you care at least about theory, but you seem stuck on fighting ideas rather than learning, teaching, and constructing them. I just don't see this discussion as an attempt to gain knowledge or otherwise enlighten or understand, at least not from your end, so I don't see much use in continuing it - so long as it keeps this character.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


And I view you not being able to grip the concept of terminology referring to a wholistic, all-encompassing value, or attempting to claim that all arguments which refer to an 'everything' as unviable, as a defeatist "dead-end." My arguments would have the exact same meaning if 'everything' referred only to a single room, and I think that's pretty clear. If you continue to refuse to accept that a theoretical argument can be made about material, fine, but don't pretend that I'm at some "dead end" because I utilize a term you can't seem to handle.

This is a rather long-winded admission that you just haven't a clue about the paradoxes created by unresticted quantification.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:1bu-x...clnk&cd=1&gl=uk (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:1bu-xo9oGI0J:philosophy.ucdavis.edu/glanzberg/contextquant.pdf+unrestricted+quantification&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk)

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:71GtP...clnk&cd=2&gl=uk (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:71GtPUG1e1cJ:seis.bris.ac.uk/~plxol/UQ.pdf+unrestricted+quantification&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk)

http://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2007-June/011629.html

http://web.mit.edu/arayo/www/Introduction.pdf

http://groups.google.tt/group/sci.logic/msg/8b7c5df17a214c4d


Really, you've made an argument about two concepts into a semantic one, then when the terms are well enough defined you attack their chosen objects, which is silly in the context. I'd appreciate it if you tried to be productive in your discussions, and I know you care at least about theory, but you seem stuck on fighting ideas rather than learning, teaching, and constructing them. I just don't see this discussion as an attempt to gain knowledge or otherwise enlighten or understand, at least not from your end, so I don't see much use in continuing it - so long as it keeps this character.

Which merely confirms my suspicions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

OK, here it is:

http://www.strongatheism.net/

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/

Remember, this site presents a crude version of ideas that are somewhat analogous to my own.

Several arguments can be found here:

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...ic_apologetics/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/introduction_to_semantic_apologetics/)

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...cognitivism/#L2 (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/#L2)

[Lynx]

Bookmarked. Thank-you :)

[Lynx]

From Strong Atheism FAQ:

• Strong atheism posits certainty, but certainty is impossible.

Strong atheistic propositions do not imply certainty.

To understand this, we need to understand the difference between a claim and the confidence we put on that claim. We can make claims about a great number of things, but the nature of the claim itself does not indicate how confident we are in it.

To give a simple example, a fundamentalist Christian having a “crisis of faith” would maintain the claim that there is 100% chance that a god exists, while having less confidence in that proposition than he did before. His claim did not change: his confidence changed.

Science also affirms a great number of universals. For instance, Newton’s law of gravity is a universal. The attraction between two masses is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance: this equation is universal, it applies to all points of spacetime and all time (as long as the laws of physics exist, of course). Yet science is open to disproof or improvement of its laws and theories. And Newton’s law of gravity was indeed shown to be incomplete by Einstein’s General Relativity. So Newton’s law being universal did not make its confidence 100%: nothing in science, nor in rational thinking, is known with 100% confidence.

By the same token, a proposition such as “there is no god” may be universal, but it does not demand certainty. It demands that we prove it as knowledge, just like any other claim of knowledge.
That is good to know, but what if your opponent assumes that "there is no god" is not a proposition, but a definitive conclusion? I know that is what I assumed and I'm not a theist.
If I do not intend to imply certainty, then I must qualify my proposition. For example, "it is highly probable that there is no god"

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:34 am
That is good to know, but what if your opponent assumes that "there is no god" is not a proposition, but a definitive conclusion? I know that is what I assumed and I'm not a theist.
If I do not intend to imply certainty, then I must qualify my proposition. For example, "it is highly probable that there is no god"
You say, "There is no evidence that there is a God." Which is true, but an altogether different claim than, "There is no god."

To speak of "existence" of God is nonsensical, because "existence" is a property of things in our universe, and the theorized God, by being supernatural and therefore outside our universe, cannot be meaningfully said to exist or not. It's like arguing whether there are other parallel universes or whether we live in a computer simulation.

[Lynx]

"There is no evidence that there is a God."
"There is no evidence that we are living in a computer simulation."
I like it. More precise, more neutral.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by pusher robot+December 15, 2007 01:17 am--> (pusher robot @ December 15, 2007 01:17 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 12:34 am
That is good to know, but what if your opponent assumes that "there is no god" is not a proposition, but a definitive conclusion? I know that is what I assumed and I'm not a theist.
If I do not intend to imply certainty, then I must qualify my proposition. For example, "it is highly probable that there is no god"
You say, "There is no evidence that there is a God." Which is true, but an altogether different claim than, "There is no god."

To speak of "existence" of God is nonsensical, because "existence" is a property of things in our universe, and the theorized God, by being supernatural and therefore outside our universe, cannot be meaningfully said to exist or not. It's like arguing whether there are other parallel universes or whether we live in a computer simulation. [/b]
It might be possible to prove parallel universes. But god, I agree, no.

[Robert]

Give it a shot.

[jasmine]

The issue is not "does God exist"? Clearly this cannot be either proved or disproved. The real issue is "what happens when I die"? Do the lights go out, do I become worm food, am I no more?

Am I a finite being or not? This is the question. The rest is bullshit. What do you think?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:35 pm
The issue is not "does God exist"? Clearly this cannot be either proved or disproved.
Unfortunately quite lot of people spend quite a lot of time on this question, whether you view it as being the right question to ask or not. I think the question is irrelevant because the universe behaves as if there wasn't a God and therefore people should follow suit.


The real issue is "what happens when I die"? Do the lights go out, do I become worm food, am I no more?

This question isn't any easier to answer because people who believe in an afterlife do so on a similar basis to those who believe in god - it's a matter of faith because we cannot ask the dead to confirm anything. I would answer the question with "worm food" because it is the only answer that fits with what is observed in the material world (the brain being the "centre of consciousness" - not well worded I know but my brain isn't completely in gear - and it rotting away after we die, for example, would lead one to the conclusion that there is no consciousness after death.).


Am I a finite being or not? This is the question. The rest is bullshit. What do you think?

Not to be a pedant but there are quite a few questions beyond that which I would consider to be non-bullshit, although none of them really relate to theology so I guess that's not what you're getting at. Anyway, regardless of the importance of the question I am almost entirely certain that the answer is yes, all the data I have to work with indicates that humans are finite beings and therefore the answer to the question is "Almost certainly".

I apologise, by the way, if those questions were meant to be rhetorical.

[JimFar]

[This part of the thread has been moved from the 'Legitimate argument about the existence of God' thread in Religion; anyone who wants to know what Jim is replying to should go there first. Rosa L]

Dissenter wrote:


t might be possible to prove parallel universes. But god, I agree, no.


I would agree with both parts of that statement. Although, we presumably could never observe universes other than our own, an indirect verification of the existence of other universes might be possible, if it is the case that the existence of such universes is implied by a physical theory which has testable consequences concerning phenomena that ARE observable within our own universe. Cosmologist Lee Smolin for instance has proposed a variation of the multiverse idea with his theory of cosmological natural selection, which he maintains does have empirically testable and falsifiable implications concerning such phenomena as the masses of neutron stars.

See:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=166703

So if that is correct then an indirect verification of the existence of other universes might be possible. I don't think that the same can be said concerning God. The kinds of phenomena that convince atheists that there is no God, like the existence of evil, do not dissuade true-blue religious believers who embrace a multitude of ad hoc hypotheses (such as the free will defense) in order to avoid falsification of their belief in God.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

An odd use of the word "parallel" here. One might as well suppose one could prove (or attempt to prove) the existence of a parallel car, or a parallel cheesburger.

Nonsense is still nonsense even if great scientists come out with it.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


An odd use of the word "parallel" here. One might as well suppose one could prove (or attempt to prove) the existence of a parallel car, or a parallel cheesburger.

Nonsense is still nonsense even if great scientists come out with it.

I think that Dissenter was referring to the idea of a multiverse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) Certainly many people have rejected the multiverse idea as nonsensical, but I am not sure that they are correct, if only because the available alternatives appear to be even worse. At least some proponents of the mutiverse idea attempt to frame within theories that would have testable consequences. So while these theories might be false, they are not necessarily nonsensical.

[jasmine]

Not to be a pedant but there are quite a few questions beyond that which I would consider to be non-bullshit, although none of them really relate to theology so I guess that's not what you're getting at. Anyway, regardless of the importance of the question I am almost entirely certain that the answer is yes, all the data I have to work with indicates that humans are finite beings and therefore the answer to the question is "Almost certainly".

The idea of being finite or non-finite does have/could have/should have profound implications for how we live. Common sense, the prevailing ideology, a belief that science can answer all questions, suggests we die and that's it. So we have a brief natural timespan that may be cut even shorter by a car accident or who knows what. How do we relate to this belief? Do we live life to the full, travel, experience different cultures, do whatever we need/want to do in the knowledge that when we die there's no second chance?

I don't believe that there is much difference between the lives led by convinced atheists and convinced believers. They both pay the mortgage and have a pretty dull time. I think this is because neither group is really convinced one way or another. This is why, "does god exist" is such a bullshit question.

[Dyst]

I think the fact that if there was a god it would be "omnipotent" (or basically everything, all the time, forever...) it is pretty much impossible for us to discuss... Or not impossible to discuss, because we do (way too much), but impossible to come up with an answer. Because all the sources to the "answers" we can define would be from within the "god" itself. In other words we'd be incapable of grasping the magnitude, therefore we search for answers in small things, while if there was a "god" (the only possible way I could see a god exist) it would include everything, even ourselves...

Then again if god was like that we could as well rename it The World.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:19 pm
I don't believe that there is much difference between the lives led by convinced atheists and convinced believers. They both pay the mortgage and have a pretty dull time. I think this is because neither group is really convinced one way or another. This is why, "does god exist" is such a bullshit question.
I'm not a cancer survivor, but I have read that knowing you might die prematurely changes one's priorities.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim Far:


I think that Dissenter was referring to the idea of a multiverse. Certainly many people have rejected the multiverse idea as nonsensical, but I am not sure that they are correct, if only because the available alternatives appear to be even worse. At least some proponents of the mutiverse idea attempt to frame within theories that would have testable consequences. So while these theories might be false, they are not necessarily nonsensical.

Thankyou for that correction Jim, but you (of all people) will know that these baroque systems in modern physics are a direct result of the reification of some pretty abstruse mathematics.

However, it makes no more sense to suppose such universes exist than it does to suppose that there must be a billion dimensions (so that we may solve, say, n simultaneous linear equations in a billion variables, a la Gauss, with a computer).

Now, if the word "universe" is taken to mean "mathematical model", then fine, but, as Wittgenstein noted, I rather think these theorists have become captives to a certain picture -- hence the reification I mentioned.

In that sense, I would maintain that the belief in 'multiverses' is nonsensical --, i.e., if interpreted along the lines indicated above.

[And, testability is not a criterion of meaning, either.]

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:19 pm
I don't believe that there is much difference between the lives led by convinced atheists and convinced believers.
Hmm. It depends what kind of conviction it is. Most people who are convinced that, for example, the God of the less insane brand of preacher exists are going to behave differently from one that believes in the God of Fred Phelps or Osama Bin Laden. For example if we imagine a bloke brought up in three different belief systems - in one he might be an atheist with fewer religious controls on his life, in another he might be a muslim with relatively few (he might not drink beer, for example) and in yet another he might say something like this:


That's GREAT! I often hear from new homeschoolers that their children are
preferring to play with the parents, siblings, and alone, soon after
beginning homeschooling.

In my opinion, that's part of the goal. Congratulations! She was becoming
addicted to interaction with her peers, who were, perhaps unintentionally,
stealing her heart from you. She had already started down the road to
becoming peer-dependent. But now, she is preferring being with you, being
with her little brother, and being alone. I think that's really healthy.

[Source (http://fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=32531)].

Lynx


I'm not a cancer survivor, but I have read that knowing you might die prematurely changes one's priorities.

What exactly do you mean by this? I am a cancer survivor but since it was such an early event in my life I can't really tell if my priorities are changed. What kind of priorities are people expected to develop?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:13 pm
Lynx

I'm not a cancer survivor, but I have read that knowing you might die prematurely changes one's priorities.
What exactly do you mean by this? I am a cancer survivor but since it was such an early event in my life I can't really tell if my priorities are changed. What kind of priorities are people expected to develop?
Generally speaking, priorities are those things you believe are important. Priorities may also be those things you spend a significant amount of time on. So I hear about cancer survivors and they explain how they've changed. What was once important is less so; what was once worth time and effort and worry, is no longer worth it. Maybe the survivors who said nothing changed were cut from the article or the interview.
'Normally' death is a distant thing that slowly creeps towards you.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 09:16 am
Jim Far:


I think that Dissenter was referring to the idea of a multiverse. Certainly many people have rejected the multiverse idea as nonsensical, but I am not sure that they are correct, if only because the available alternatives appear to be even worse. At least some proponents of the mutiverse idea attempt to frame within theories that would have testable consequences. So while these theories might be false, they are not necessarily nonsensical.

Thankyou for that correction Jim, but you (of all people) will know that these baroque systems in modern physics are a direct result of the reification of some pretty abstruse mathematics.

However, it makes no more sense to suppose such universes exist than it does to suppose that there must be a billion dimensions (so that we may solve, say, n simultaneous linear equations in a billion variables, a la Gauss, with a computer).

Now, if the word "universe" is taken to mean "mathematical model", then fine, but, as Wittgenstein noted, I rather think these theorists have become captives to a certain picture -- hence the reification I mentioned.

In that sense, I would maintain that the belief in 'multiverses' is nonsensical --, i.e., if interpreted along the lines indicated above.

[And, testability is not a criterion of meaning, either.]
For clarification I said it might be possible to prove "parallel universes" which can also be called the multiverse. The word 'parallel' is used because it talks about a universe that is having some kind of effect on ours, a local one maybe? Anyway my curiosity has been rekindled by a recent cover article in Neo Scientist. Here it is in full:


N AUGUST, radio astronomers announced that they had found an enormous hole in the universe. Nearly a billion light years across, the void lies in the constellation Eridanus and has far fewer stars, gas and galaxies than usual. It is bigger than anyone imagined possible and is beyond the present understanding of cosmology. What could cause such a gaping hole? One team of physicists has a breathtaking explanation: "It is the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own," says Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

It is a staggering claim. If Mersini-Houghton's team is right, the giant void is the first experimental evidence for another universe. It would also vindicate string theory, our most promising understanding of how the universe works at its most fundamental level. And it would do away with the anthropic arguments that have plagued string theorists in recent years because they say we are the reason the cosmos is the way it is. The hole in the universe is a big deal.

The giant void first showed up in maps of the afterglow of the big bang. In 2004, NASA's WMAP satellite made the most detailed measurements to date of the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. This microwave radiation gains a small amount of energy when it passes through a region of space populated by matter, making it appear slightly warmer in that direction. In contrast, radiation passing through an empty void loses energy, and so it appears cooler.

The WMAP team noticed an abnormally large cold spot where the temperature was between 20 and 45 per cent lower than the average for the rest of the sky, suggestive of a void. The spot covers a few degrees of the sky - many times more than the full moon. However, without knowing how far away the void was, it was difficult to tell its size.

Things began to change as researchers analysed the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the largest 3D map of galaxies made so far. Once they knew how far away various galaxies were, they were able to calculate that the WMAP cold spot coincides with an enormous void that has grown to around 900 million light years across. Located about 8 billion years away, the void contains about 20 to 45 per cent fewer galaxies than you would expect.

This was confirmed in August by Lawrence Rudnick, Shea Brown and Liliya Williams of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, who were analysing a survey of radio-emitting galaxies carried out by the Very Large Array of telescopes at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory near Socorro, New Mexico.

A mere 5 per cent of the universe is filled with galaxy clusters, the other 95 per cent is mysterious voids. There are plenty of small voids, but the bigger they get the rarer they become. No one expected one 900 million light years across.

A void so big is virtually impossible to explain within standard cosmology. According to our best theories, the seeds of galaxy clusters and voids were sown shortly after the big bang, when the universe was a roiling vacuum of quantum fluctuations that were then magnified by a period of superfast expansion called inflation. Fluctuations of all sizes are possible, though larges ones are rare. "Any fluctuation leading to a void as big as the WMAP cold spot is exceedingly unlikely, according to standard cosmology," says Mersini-Houghton.

There are other explanations for the WMAP cold spot. For example, some researchers speculate that it is due to a giant knot in space called a topological defect, predicted in certain theoretical models (New Scientist, 13 July, p 12). However, Mersini-Houghton's explanation could have greater significance.
Entangled universes

She and her colleagues looked for an explanation outside of standard cosmology. They turned to string theory, the leading contender for a "theory of everything" that unites the laws of physics to explain how all matter and energy behaves. The theory holds that the ultimate building blocks of matter, such as quarks and leptons, are tiny strings of mass-energy vibrating in a 10-dimensional space-time.

String theory's selling point had always been that it could make unique predictions about the properties of our universe. This made it more aesthetically pleasing than anthropic arguments, which say that certain aspects of the universe - like the constants that characterise the laws of physics - are the way they are because otherwise we wouldn't be here to wonder about them.

Yet string theory does not just describe one universe. It describes 10500 universes, each one a quantum vacuum with different physical properties. So why was ours the universe that grew large? "String theorists, who so much hoped to avoid the anthropic principle, have now been forced to invoke it to explain why our vacuum was selected out from the 10500 other string vacuums," says Mersini-Houghton.

Anthropic arguments leave many physicists queasy. They would prefer an explanation for the universe's properties that has nothing to do with our existence. Rather than abandon string theory completely, however, Mersini-Houghton was convinced there must be a way to thin down the forest of string vacuums without using the anthropic principle. She and her collaborator Richard Holman of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, had a hunch that matter and gravity might have some kind of dynamic effect that whittles down the number of vacuums to a small bunch that eventually grows into our universe and its neighbours.

According to string theory, each possible universe has different conditions. If a patch of vacuum is to lead to a universe like ours, the important thing is that it must grow large. This means something must oppose gravity, which tends to suck together the mass-energy of the vacuum and shrink it.

That something can only be the vacuum itself. If the vacuum has an enormous negative pressure, Einstein's theory of gravity says it will generate repulsive gravity that blows rather than sucks. "A patch of vacuum's repulsive gravity therefore overwhelms the attractive gravity of its matter," says Mersini-Houghton. "For the patch of vacuum that led to our universe, this happened during the first split second of its existence in a period called inflation."

According to Mersini-Houghton and Holman, the dynamic effect of matter and gravity would have weeded out the majority of string vacuums, leaving only our patch and close neighbours in the string landscape. "It's a much more scientific and legitimate way of picking out a universe like ours than the anthropic principle," she says. "But it has extraordinary consequences."

Mersini-Houghton and Holman's calculations show that the patch of vacuum that led to our universe must have interacted with neighbouring patches very early on. Because these interactions are between tiny patches of quantum vacuum, they would leave the universes in an entangled state and give them a ghostly connection that allows them to sense and affect each other from afar. "Such an entangled state remains for all time," says Mersini-Houghton. "So although inflation quickly pushed our region beyond the reach of neighbouring regions, it should still retain the imprint of its quantum entanglement with its neighbours."

The question is: where should we look for the imprint and what form might that imprint take? Because of the expansion of the universe, no light or signals can reach us from beyond the cosmic horizon, about 42 billion light years away. On a far smaller scale, the messy process of galaxy formation has effectively erased any trace of the early interaction between our universe and neighbouring ones. However, on scales comparable to the cosmic horizon itself, there ought to remain an imprint from the time closest to the beginning of inflation when there was an interaction. "In today's universe, it should manifest itself at a red shift of less than 1, corresponding to a time when the universe was about half its present age, says Mersini-Houghton."
Smoking gun

Mersini-Houghton and Holton say their dynamical theory can describe the form of the imprint too. The vacuums of neighbouring patches effectively push on our universe, they say. According to relativity, such squeezing produces repulsive gravity. Where we can see the squeezing act - on scales comparable with the size of the universe - the repulsive gravity should dramatically thin out matter and make it harder for galaxies to form. "We predict the existence of a giant void about 500 million light years across," says Mersini-Houghton. By cosmology's standards this forecast ties in pretty well with astronomers' observations of a void 900 million light years across at a red shift of 1. "We are amazed that the void is there just as we predicted," she says.

Working with Tomo Takahashi of Saga University in Japan, Mersini-Houghton and Holman go further. They predict that there should be not one such giant void but two: one in the northern hemisphere corresponding to the WMAP cold spot and one in the southern hemisphere. "We are hoping that a southern void will turn up in the data soon," she says.

So far the work has had a mixed reception. "It is one of the most interesting ways to relate observations in our universe to the vastly larger string landscape," says physicist Leonard Parker of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Others are more cautious. "It's interesting," says David Spergel of Princeton University. "However, it is very speculative."

Mersini-Houghton and her team make a further prediction that could soon be tested - what they call the "smoking gun" of their idea. In standard cosmology, the temperature variations of the big bang radiation are the direct result of the distribution of matter in the universe. This means the pattern of galaxies should exactly match the temperature features in the big bang radiation.

That won't be the case, says Mersini-Houghton. Her team's work shows that the entanglement between our universe and neighbouring universes changes the density of matter on the largest scales. If they are right, the interaction will leave a subtle mark on observations. "We predict that correlation between matter and temperature will be found to be much less than 100 per cent."

The test could come as soon as next year, when the European Space Agency launches its Planck microwave background probe. Planck should be able to both confirm the existence of the cold spot and improve the precision of the WMAP sky map.

Planck isn't the only test. Mersini-Houghton also makes a prediction about what will be seen - or rather not seen - at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva, Switzerland, when it switches on next year. Many particle physicists believe that the LHC will uncover the first experimental evidence for supersymmetry, a popular theory that posits that every particle has a heavier superpartner. None of the particle accelerators built so far has had enough energy to create supersymmetric particles, but physicists believe that the collision energy at the LHC will produce fireballs with sufficient energy to recreate conditions in the early universe.

They hope to test what happened when the universe cooled below a certain temperature and underwent a phase transition, which broke supersymmetry. According to string models, the energy released during the phase transition drove inflation, and went on to create supersymmetric particles. Since the energy had to be sufficient to ensure the growth of our piece of vacuum, Mersini-Houghton and her colleagues can make an estimate of the energy scale of supersymmetry breaking. "We find it is about 100,000 times greater than generally believed," she says. "Therefore we predict that the LHC will not detect supersymmetry."
String theory's saviour

It is a controversial result and many physicists disagree. "The string landscape is quite dense and it is most likely that vastly different physical parameters may give rise to quite similar universes," says Orfeu Bertolami of the Instituto Superior Técnico in Lisbon, Portugal. "Nevertheless, I find their work very interesting."

Despite the disagreement, the latest work is emblematic of a recent U-turn in theoretical physics. When the first WMAP results were made public in 2002, cosmologists claimed that the findings confirmed the standard model of the universe. Nobody expected anomalies to emerge and, if they did, nobody expected they would threaten to turn the standard picture of cosmology on its head.

Worse, some physicists have started to turn their backs on string theory in recent years, fearing that it is a dud, incapable of making any testable predictions. Some have even gone as far as declaring string theory dead. "I think our evidence points to string theory being on the right track," says Mersini-Houghton. Now, with the discovery of the hole in the universe, it seems it could be a case of string theory is dead, long live string theory.

From issue 2631 of Neo Scientist magazine, 24 November 2007, page 34-37

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter, it is no more possible to prove the existence of 'parallel universes' than it is to prove the existence of parallel banana fritters, orthogonal wombats or self-adjunct vacuum cleaners.

Just because scientists use this term, it does not mean it makes sense -- especially if it depends on the reification of some pretty arcane mathematics.

They used to speak about the Platonic solids determining the position of the planets, too -- once.

And 'the aether', and 'substantial forms', and 'entelechies', and 'quintessence', and...

[pusher robot]

The word 'parallel' is used because it talks about a universe that is having some kind of effect on ours, a local one maybe? Anyway my curiosity has been rekindled by a recent cover article in Neo Scientist. Here it is in full:


No, a truly parallel universe, like a set of parallel lines, will never intersect with and has no perceivable impact on our own.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes I know what parallel lines are, but an object (like a universe, or a cheeseburger) cannot be parallel.

Unless this is meant to be merely a metaphor, and even then we would still be no clearer what its physical sense was.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 05:34 pm
Yes I know what parallel lines are, but an object (like a universe, or a cheeseburger) cannot be parallel.

Unless this is meant to be merely a metaphor, and even then we would still be no clearer what its physical sense was.
Obviously it is a metaphor. To speak of the physicality of things outside the physical universe is nonsense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, it is certainly senseless.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Dissenter, it is no more possible to prove the existence of 'parallel universes' than it is to prove the existence of parallel banana fritters, orthogonal wombats or self-adjunct vacuum cleaners.

Just because scientists use this term, it does not mean it makes sense -- especially if it depends on the reification of some pretty arcane mathematics.

They used to speak about the Platonic solids determining the position of the planets, too -- once.

And 'the aether', and 'substantial forms', and 'entelechies', and 'quintessence', and..

I am not sure that I would agree with that. Some of those concepts did have meaning within the contexts of the physical theories in which they were embedded. Those concepts are no longer accepted because the theories with which they were associated with have since been rejected, either because they were found to make predictions that were not confirmed by experiments or because the phenomena for which these concepts had been created to explain could be explained more parsimoniously without them. The latter was the case with the aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether) concept. When Maxwell's electrodynamics was introduced in the mid-19th century, it appeared that his theory constituted an exception to the Galilean relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_relativity) that applied to classical mechanics, so that in reference to light, it seemed to make sense to refer to "absolutely stationary space", but Einstein in his famous 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) , Einstein was able to show that the ether concept was unnecessary because he could show that electromagnetism was not an exception to the principle of relativity. If a theory, even one with highly arcane mathematics, makes testable predictions which can be confirmed experimentally and that theory provides more parsimonious explanations of phenomena than its rivals then it seems to me churlish to say that its concepts are without physical meaning. We should keep in mind that back in the 20th century, there were people who objected to both relativity and quantum mechanics precisely on the grounds that these were said to involve "reification of some pretty arcane mathematics."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks once again for that Jim, but, as Wittgenstein also noted, when it comes to explaining what the physical sense of these terms is (he used the word 'prose' here, and in relation to mathematics), scientists indulge in some pretty naive mataphysics.

And, as we know, the criteria determining 'testability' are largely set by the theory itself, or, rather, by those applying it.

So, it was possible to 'test' Ptolemy's ideas; but that did not make them physically real.

And, Einstein did not abandon the aether concept, either.

On this see Kostro's book referenced at my site. Or here:

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/einsteinether.htm

Or this PDF:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


o, it was possible to 'test' Ptolemy's ideas; but that did not make them physically real.

It was indeed possible to test Ptolemy's ideas, and in fact his theory was quite successful in the sense that it did make many predictions concerning the motions of the planets that could be confirmed by observation. When Copernicus formulated his alternative heliocentric theory, his main claim was not that his theory made better predictions than the Ptolemaic theory but rather his theory offered a more parsimonious explanation than Ptolemy of observed planetary phenomena. Copernicus claimed that his theory required fewer epicycles than did the Ptolemaic model. (Actually, Copernicus undercut the power of his theory by insisting on retaining the idea that the motions of the planets had to be explained in terms of circular orbits. Kepler was able to show later that if we allowed for elliptical orbits things could be explained even more parsimoniously). And Kepler's version of the heliocentric theory proved to be even more fruitful for further scientific research than either the Ptolemaic model or the Copernican model because it led almost directly to Newton's gravitational theory, so in that sense Ptolemy's ideas were not "physically real" because they were less parsimonious and less fruitful than the rival heliocentric model.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Maybe so, but parsimnony/simplicity is not an objective criterion, it is subjective and solely geared at boosting the morale of scientists.

And, as you know, Einstein's system means it is indifferent whether the sun or the earth or any other point is taken to be the 'centre':

This is what I wrote in Essay Three Part Two:


On this, Robert Mills had this comment to make:

"Another way of stating the principle of equivalence, a way that better reflects its name, is to say that all reference frames, including accelerated reference frames, are equivalent, that the laws of Physics take the same form in any reference frame…. And it is also correct to say that the Copernican view (with the sun at the centre) and the Ptolemaic view (with the earth at the centre) are equally valid and equally consistent!" [Mills (1994), pp.182-83. Spelling altered to conform to UK English.]

[It is worth recalling that the late Professor Mills was co-inventor of Yang-Mills Theory in Gauge Quantum Mechanics, and was thus not a scientific novice.]

And this is what Fred Hoyle had to say:

"Instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view....

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense...." [Hoyle (1973), pp.78-79.]

"We now know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. But such an understanding had to await Einstein's theory of gravitation in order to be fully clarified." [Hoyle (1975), p.416.]

Similarly, Max Born commented:

"Thus from Einstein's point of view Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency. For the mechanics of the planetary system the view of Copernicus is certainly the more convenient. But it is meaningless to call the gravitational fields that occur when a different system of reference is chosen 'fictitious' in contrast with the 'real' fields produced by near masses: it is just as meaningless as the question of the 'real' length of a rod...in the special theory of relativity. A gravitational field is neither 'real' nor 'fictitious' in itself. It has no meaning at all independent of the choice of coordinates, just as in the case of the length of a rod." [Born (1965), p.345. I owe this reference to Rosser (1967).]

Of course, it could always be claimed that Copernican theory is simpler than the Ptolemaic system, but until we receive a clear sign that nature works according to our notion of simplicity (or cares a fig about it), that argument won't wash.

This is quite apart from the fact that 'simplicity' is impossible to define in non-question-begging terms. For example, whish is the simpler of these two formulae?

(1) θ = Ae^-kt

(2) θ = At^2 + Bt + C

(2) is algebraically 'simpler', but (1) is 'simpler' if we judge simplicity on the basis of the number of terms used.

On this, see Losee (2001), pp.228-29.

References here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_02.htm

Finally, what is considered 'more fruitful' depends on other factors than those inherent in a given theory, or research tradition. Other wider social factors are equally, if not more, important.

[Lynx]

Theories then, are 'refined'. If the theory makes better predictions, then the refinement was 'worth it'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This whole process is subject to complex forms of social negotiation, and cannot simply be put down to whether a theory predicts this or that, or is more 'rational'.

Incorrect theories often make successful (practical and theoretical) predictions -- as, for example, Ptolemy's system did for many centuries. In fact, the allegedly superior Copernican system was no more accurate than the older theory had been. Indeed, Ptolemy's system was refined progressively in line with observation for over a thousand years, and it became more accurate as a result. Despite that, it was no nearer to what we might now regard as the 'truth'.

And, correct theories can sometimes fail, and they can do so for many years. For instance, Copernican Astronomy predicted stellar parallax, which was not observed until 1838 with the work of Friedrich Bessel, three hundred years after Copernicus's book was published.

Similarly, Darwin's theory of descent through modification made predictions that were at variance with patently obvious facts: the persistence of inherited variations. The latter were inconsistent with Darwin's own "blending" theory of transmission. Given Darwin's account, new and advantageous variations should be blended out of a breeding population, not preserved or enhanced. It was not until the advent of genetically-based theories of inheritance forty or so years later that Darwin's theory became viable.

[Lynx]

The process requires time. Errors are eventually found and corrected. That process continues, despite orthodoxies that scientists may allow themselves to hold. Science tries to explain and predict. If a given explanation were 'complete' (as in completely accurate) then it would be the truth. It would also herald the beginning of the end of science.

Have their been any recent developments in the field of Newtonian Mechanics?

Edit: Carl Sagan argued against subjective dismissal of theories, eg. Velikovsky

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23, 2007 03:46 pm
Incorrect theories often make successful (practical and theoretical) predictions -- as, for example, Ptolemy's system did for many centuries. In fact, the allegedly superior Copernican system was no more accurate than the older theory had been. Indeed, Ptolemy's system was refined progressively in line with observation for over a thousand years, and it became more accurate as a result. Despite that, it was no nearer to what we might now regard as the 'truth'.
"If it works, its good."

And, correct theories can sometimes fail, and they can do so for many years. For instance, Copernican Astronomy predicted stellar parallax, which was not observed until 1838 with the work of Friedrich Bessel, three hundred years after Copernicus's book was published.
It didn't fail, it languished until proper equipment could be built.


Similarly, Darwin's theory of descent through modification made predictions that were at variance with patently obvious facts: the persistence of inherited variations. The latter were inconsistent with Darwin's own "blending" theory of transmission. Given Darwin's account, new and advantageous variations should be blended out of a breeding population, not preserved or enhanced. It was not until the advent of genetically-based theories of inheritance forty or so years later that Darwin's theory became viable.
It was made more viable (than competing theories).

[Lynx]

Btw, the strong atheism site has good arguments. I'm thinking about bringing them up one by one in my debates with Christians, and allowing them time to consider each one. My goal would be to sow the seeds of doubt, not 'prove' them wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

L:


Errors are eventually found and corrected.

Errors are relative to a system in which they make sense; they are not free floating.


Have their been any recent developments in the field of Newtonian Mechanics?

Yes, Newtonian mechanics can now explain all that Einstein's theory can, and without all that baroque mathematics.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/


"If it works, its good."

Yes, that certainly settles things... :rolleyes:


It didn't fail, it languished until proper equipment could be built.

Who said it failed, full stop? I indicated they failed until...

How do we know, therefore, whether or not currently rejected theories will fail until the 'correct equipment' is deveolped, then?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23, 2007 05:04 pm
L:

Errors are eventually found and corrected.
Errors are relative to a system in which they make sense; they are not free floating.
Errors that don't cause problems do appear to float undetected. Philosophers can build cities in the skies so long as their systems are not put into practice. And even then...


Have their been any recent developments in the field of Newtonian Mechanics?
Yes, Newtonian mechanics can now explain all that Einstein's theory can, and without all that baroque mathematics.
That is a pleasant surprise :)


"If it works, its good."

Yes, that certainly settles things... :rolleyes:
For a pragmatist, it does.


It didn't fail, it languished until proper equipment could be built.
Who said it failed, full stop? I indicated they failed until...

How do we know, therefore, whether or not currently rejected theories will fail until the 'correct equipment' is deveolped, then?
We wait.
We wait for new developments, new equipment; we wait for theory to be put into practice. For example, I'm waiting to see if the Higgs boson remains elusive.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Errors that don't cause problems do appear to float undetected.

I think you misunderstand; the idea is that what constitutes (ie., counts as) an 'error' is socially-negotiated. Nature cannot tell us, for obvious reasons.


Philosophers can build cities in the skies so long as their systems are not put into practice. And even then

I am sorry, I wasn't too sure what the relevance of this was. :blink:


For a pragmatist, it does.

Not so, for reasons I haven't the energy to explain.


We wait for new developments, new equipment; we wait for theory to be put into practice. For example, I'm waiting to see if the Higgs boson remains elusive.

Once more, if and how instruments are deemed to work and what they detect or fail to detect are also socially-negotiated.

None of these is a given.

Now, if you want to discuss this any further, start a thread in Science or Philosophy.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 24, 2007 09:34 am
Lynx:


Errors that don't cause problems do appear to float undetected.

I think you misunderstand; the idea is that what constitutes (ie., counts as) an 'error' is socially-negotiated. Nature cannot tell us, for obvious reasons.


Philosophers can build cities in the skies so long as their systems are not put into practice. And even then

I am sorry, I wasn't too sure what the relevance of this was. :blink:
Yes, I misunderstand.
I'm not concerned whether errors are socially negotiated. If I take an idea and apply it, and it doesn't work, the only thing I'm concerned about is the fact that it doesn't work. Society can negotiate what constitutes an error all they want, including assigning blame and other horrors. As far as I'm concerned, if an idea cannot be made to work, it is archived.


For a pragmatist, it does.

Not so, for reasons I haven't the energy to explain.


We wait for new developments, new equipment; we wait for theory to be put into practice. For example, I'm waiting to see if the Higgs boson remains elusive.

Once more, if and how instruments are deemed to work and what they detect or fail to detect are also socially-negotiated.

None of these is a given.
One of these is the future. It is not a given, I agree, and there is a wait.


Now, if you want to discuss this any further, start a thread in Science or Philosophy.
Feel free to split this, but really this discussion is about understanding your fondness for heaving various 'items' into a bonfire and what benefit this might accrue. I'm assuming your disparaging remarks towards certain historical alumni are a part of that.

Happy Holidays :blush:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This has been split, with the lower sections posted in Science, in the new thread Progress in Science'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx;


I'm not concerned whether errors are socially negotiated. If I take an idea and apply it, and it doesn't work, the only thing I'm concerned about is the fact that it doesn't work. Society can negotiate what constitutes an error all they want, including assigning blame and other horrors. As far as I'm concerned, if an idea cannot be made to work, it is archived.

1) This has nothing to do with progress in science, unless every single scientist on the planet regards you as the final authority. But, even then, that would make this part of dogma, not science.

2) Independently of that, this would only work if you weren't a social being yourself. Unfortunately for you, however, the words you employ, like "error", "work" and "idea" are also conditioned by socially-motivated criteria of application, which you had no hand in forming. So, even you cannot escape the social aspects of 'progress', here.


One of these is the future. It is not a given, I agree, and there is a wait.

But, that is no help, for the deliverances of the 'future' cannot interpet themselves, but have to be processed by human beings, who are, once more, social entities.


but really this discussion is about understanding your fondness for heaving various 'items' into a bonfire

Ruling class, non-scientific 'items'; which socialist could object to that?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 05:02 am
Lynx;
1) This has nothing to do with progress in science, unless every single scientist on the planet regards you as the final authority. But, even then, that would make this part of dogma, not science.
I am the end user, attempting to apply a theory to solve a problem. I may choose to inform the 'curators' of the theory that there might be an inconsistency. The curators may choose to objectively consider my request. Result: progress.
Alternatively, I may choose to heave the theory into a bonfire and the curators may choose to ignore, blame or heave me onto a bonfire of their own. Result: deferred progress.


2) Independently of that, this would only work if you weren't a social being yourself. Unfortunately for you, however, the words you employ, like "error", "work" and "idea" are also conditioned by socially-motivated criteria of application, which you had no hand in forming. So, even you cannot escape the social aspects of 'progress', here.
Why would I want to escape it? Am I upset that Ptolemy's ideas persisted a lot longer because of ecclesiastical backing? Not particularly. Would I want society to operate or function more objectively? Yes


One of these is the future. It is not a given, I agree, and there is a wait.
But, that is no help, for the deliverances of the 'future' cannot interpet themselves, but have to be processed by human beings, who are, once more, social entities.
It isn't meant to be of help, simply an acknowledgment that progress can 'languish', without anyone being at fault.


but really this discussion is about understanding your fondness for heaving various 'items' into a bonfire
Ruling class, non-scientific 'items'; which socialist could object to that?
I object to a lack of purpose. Burning books on a cold wintry night can serve a purpose: keeping warm. You don't strike me as an arbitrary pyromaniac.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Why would I want to escape it? Am I upset that Ptolemy's ideas persisted a lot longer because of ecclesiastical backing? Not particularly. Would I want society to operate or function more objectively? Yes

It does not matter what you want or do not want, you can't.

And the word "objective" is not much use to you either -- it is socially-conditioned, too.


It isn't meant to be of help, simply an acknowledgment that progress can 'languish', without anyone being at fault.

Eh? :blink:


You don't strike me as an arbitrary pyromaniac.

I did say this:


Ruling class, non-scientific 'items'; which socialist could object to that?

Nohing arbitrary there.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 12:22 pm
Lynx:

It isn't meant to be of help, simply an acknowledgment that progress can 'languish', without anyone being at fault.

Eh? :blink:
The delay between prediction and observation, whether it be stellar parallax or the "elusive" Higgs boson.



You don't strike me as an arbitrary pyromaniac.

I did say this:


Ruling class, non-scientific 'items'; which socialist could object to that?

Nothing arbitrary there.
Without purpose, I cannot tell if it is arbitrary or not. 'Ruling class' sounds like an ad hominum for the specified group, yet how can I be sure? At least with dialectics you have a stated purpose. Also, please specify 'items'.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 09:02 am

but really this discussion is about understanding your fondness for heaving various 'items' into a bonfire

Ruling class, non-scientific 'items'; which socialist could object to that?
Relativity is "ruling class" now? :rolleyes: Get help.

[emceesquared]

the problem is that you all have one idea of what god is, and that's the Christian god.

most your questions don't apply to other gods of other faiths, because not all religions are dualistic.

oh and one thing, i do agree with christians on the whole free will argument, why WOULD god make everything happy and control ever circumstance? if there's really an afterlife, suffering for a few years is nothing compared to eternity. im sure to a god, a little bit of suffering doesn't matter, he/she has seen it all before, and knows that after death none of that matters anyways

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Relativity is "ruling class" now?

Your words, not mine.


Get help.

Ok, what do you need? An optician? A psychiatrist? A team of psychologists? Another make-up artist?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


The delay between prediction and observation, whether it be stellar parallax or the "elusive" Higgs boson.

This does not affect the socially-conditioned nature of science.


Ruling class' sounds like an ad hominum for the specified group, yet how can I be sure?

Even if this were correct, which it isn't, there is nothing inherently wrong with 'ad hominem' arguments, despite what you have been told.


At least with dialectics you have a stated purpose. Also, please specify 'items'.

Notice, the word "items" is in quotes; that is because I was using a word you introduced, namely "items".

Can I suggest, therefore, that you direct this question to yourself?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 08:31 pm
Lynx:

The delay between prediction and observation, whether it be stellar parallax or the "elusive" Higgs boson.
This does not affect the socially-conditioned nature of science.
I wouldn't think it did, 'socially-conditioned' is a term you bring up. Can you provide an example to show how the socially-conditioned nature of science affects the progress of science? Was Ptolemy an example of this?


Ruling class' sounds like an ad hominum for the specified group, yet how can I be sure?
Even if this were correct, which it isn't, there is nothing inherently wrong with 'ad hominem' arguments, despite what you have been told.
If I feel there's something 'wrong' with your argument, ad hominem or not, I will speak up. First I require a purpose, or a reason for your vaguely discriminate action.


At least with dialectics you have a stated purpose. Also, please specify 'items'.
Notice, the word "items" is in quotes; that is because I was using a word you introduced, namely "items".
Can I suggest, therefore, that you direct this question to yourself?
If I knew specifically what you were referring to, I would not have used 'items'. What categories do the items fall under?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Can you provide an example to show how the socially-conditioned nature of science affects the progress of science? Was Ptolemy an example of this?

This is a basic Marxist idea (it is connected with the idea that social 'being' determines 'consciousness' (but I would not prefer to use those terms)).

You can find a non-marxist version of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism

Boris Hessen was the first to work-out a Marxist version (but only programmatically; he was shot by Stalin for his pains):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Hessen

The best Marxist work in this area has been done by Richard Hadden:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=7Ix...KjH17-Qgi5PVZlg (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=7IxtC4Jw1YoC&dq=on+the+shoulders+of+merchants&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=orWlcPR7Q-&sig=LWGsA7720zN6KjH17-Qgi5PVZlg)

Ptolemy's system was conditioned by the hierarchical social system of his day, which is why the Catholic Church went a bundle on it.

Copernicus and Newton's universe suited a bourgeois view of reality.


If I feel there's something 'wrong' with your argument, ad hominem or not, I will speak up. First I require a purpose, or a reason for your vaguely discriminate action.

Fine, but ad hominem arguments are still not inherently defective.


If I knew specifically what you were referring to, I would not have used 'items'. What categories do the items fall under?

Here is what you posted earlier:


Feel free to split this, but really this discussion is about understanding your fondness for heaving various 'items' into a bonfire and what benefit this might accrue.

"Items" is not a word I would use in this context, so I am at a loss as to how to help you.

[Marsella]

This is a basic Marxist idea (it is connected with the idea that social 'being' determines 'consciousness' (but I would not prefer to use those terms)).


Why not?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I do not like the word "being" since it has untoward Hegelian overtones, and "consciousness" is fraught with problems connected with the reification/nominalisation of a whole complex set of verbs we use to describe our mental lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 10:31 am
Lynx:


Can you provide an example to show how the socially-conditioned nature of science affects the progress of science? Was Ptolemy an example of this?

This is a basic Marxist idea (it is connected with the idea that social 'being' determines 'consciousness' (but I would not prefer to use those terms)).

You can find a non-marxist version of it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism

Boris Hessen was the first to work-out a Marxist version (but only programmatically; he was shot by Stalin for his pains):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Hessen

The best Marxist work in this area has been done by Richard Hadden:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=7Ix...KjH17-Qgi5PVZlg (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=7IxtC4Jw1YoC&dq=on+the+shoulders+of+merchants&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=orWlcPR7Q-&sig=LWGsA7720zN6KjH17-Qgi5PVZlg)

Ptolemy's system was conditioned by the hierarchical social system of his day, which is why the Catholic Church went a bundle on it.

Copernicus and Newton's universe suited a bourgeois view of reality.
This is the basis for claiming that scientific progress is affected?
Well then, to what extent does it negatively affect scientific progress? Can we determine what harm was done from accepting Ptolemy's system and a bourgoeois view of reality? To what extent was scientific progress delayed or set back?
Is it possible that scientific progress was positively affected?


If I feel there's something 'wrong' with your argument, ad hominem or not, I will speak up. First I require a purpose, or a reason for your vaguely discriminate action.
Fine, but ad hominem arguments are still not inherently defective.
I'm having trouble remembering a valid one (I usually can't be bothered to define ad hominems in the first place), please provide one.


Here is what you posted earlier:


Feel free to split this, but really this discussion is about understanding your fondness for heaving various 'items' into a bonfire and what benefit this might accrue.

"Items" is not a word I would use in this context, so I am at a loss as to how to help you.Items could be books, ideas, theories, constructs, axioms, facts, thought. If you can't narrow it one way or the other, keep 'item' or use the term you prefer.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Your words, not mine.

You claim that scientific endeavour in class society is affected to the point where you feel comfortable calling Newton and Copernicus' models of the universe "bourgeois" (like having the sun in the centre of the solar system and E=MC^2 somehow justifies the ruling class, not). Considering you posted a link to a website laughably claiming to have found Newtonian solutions to typically Einsteinian problems (The shortcomings of Newtonian Mechanics was precisely the reason why Relativity was needed), this is just another confirmation that you regularly allow your ideology to blind you.

Don't like relativity? Then come up with something better! Political backstabbing is not the way to advance science (Lysenko should have taught you that but it seems you have not learned the lesson), and neither is harking back to outdated scientific models.

You do not think remotely like a scientist, despite Marxist pretensions to the contrary. You are a political animal, and until you find a way of getting your mind into scientific gear, stop making yourself look like an ignoramus on the level of a creationist - didn't you know they also like to mix science and politics to the base level you do?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


This is the basis for claiming that scientific progress is affected?
Well then, to what extent does it negatively affect scientific progress? Can we determine what harm was done from accepting Ptolemy's system and a bourgoeois view of reality? To what extent was scientific progress delayed or set back?
Is it possible that scientific progress was positively affected?

It does not 'negatively/positively affect scientific'progress, it constitutes it.

[The word 'progress' is also socially-conditioned.]


I'm having trouble remembering a valid one (I usually can't be bothered to define ad hominems in the first place), please provide one.

Easy: Comrade NN asserted p, and two secomds later asserted not p; so comrade NN is confused.

To be sure, this is an informal argument, but it can be formalised quite easily.


Items could be books, ideas, theories, constructs, axioms, facts, thought. If you can't narrow it one way or the other, keep 'item' or use the term you prefer.

As I said, you can answer your own question...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AH, Noxion, back from the opticians/psychiatrists/psychologists/beauty salon I see:


You claim that scientific endeavour in class society is affected to the point where you feel comfortable calling Newton and Copernicus' models of the universe "bourgeois" (like having the sun in the centre of the solar system and E=MC^2 somehow justifies the ruling class, not). Considering you posted a link to a website laughably claiming to have found Newtonian solutions to typically Einsteinian problems (The shortcomings of Newtonian Mechanics was precisely the reason why Relativity was needed), this is just another confirmation that you regularly allow your ideology to blind you.

Read what I said again, with your new glasses on this time.


Don't like relativity? Then come up with something better! Political backstabbing is not the way to advance science (Lysenko should have taught you that but it seems you have not learned the lesson), and neither is harking back to outdated scientific models.

Where did I say this?

Looks like you ducked out of therapy too soon... :o


stop making yourself look like an ignoramus on the level of a creationist -

Ok, I will stop making myself look like you. :rolleyes:

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 04:02 pm
Lynx:
It does not 'negatively/positively affect scientific'progress, it constitutes it.

[The word 'progress' is also socially-conditioned.]
Well then, what is the relationship between science and social conditioning?
Can scientific progress be accelerated through consideration of social conditioning?

Easy: Comrade NN asserted p, and two secomds later asserted not p; so comrade NN is confused.
You would have to show that being part of the 'ruling class' is relevant to their argument being inconsistent.


Items could be books, ideas, theories, constructs, axioms, facts, thought. If you can't narrow it one way or the other, keep 'item' or use the term you prefer.

As I said, you can answer your own question...
I cannot provide answers, reasons, or specificities for 'ruling-class, non-scientific items' - only you can. I can speculate. You do not strike me as an arbitrary, vaguely discriminate pyromaniac. Or one of Hume's little helpers. I can always ask Hume about his bonfire, if you were innocently playing with his matches.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Well then, what is the relationship between science and social conditioning?
Can scientific progress be accelerated through consideration of social conditioning?

Think about it: science is advanced by scientists (obviously!), who as human beings cannot help but be socially-conditioned.

So, the questions you ask are redundant; science is a social process.


You would have to show that being part of the 'ruling class' is relevant to their argument being inconsistent.

I go further, and show that all ruling-class ideology is far too confused to be judged inconsistent or consistent.


I cannot provide answers, reasons, or specificities for 'ruling-class, non-scientific items' - only you can. I can speculate. You do not strike me as an arbitrary, vaguely discriminate pyromaniac. Or one of Hume's little helpers. I can always ask Hume about his bonfire, if you were innocently playing with his matches.

Look, I have said what I have said; make of it what you will.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 11:26 am
Lynx:

Well then, what is the relationship between science and social conditioning?
Can scientific progress be accelerated through consideration of social conditioning?
Think about it: science is advanced by scientists (obviously!), who as human beings cannot help but be socially-conditioned.

So, the questions you ask are redundant; science is a social process.
I was considering using 'tautology' or 'product of' to describe the relationship, thankfully I didn't!
Lynx has been socially conditioned to believe that scientific progress leads to 'good things'. Lynx asks: How can realizing that science is a social process help us optimize scientific progress?


You would have to show that being part of the 'ruling class' is relevant to their argument being inconsistent.
I go further, and show that all ruling-class ideology is far too confused to be judged inconsistent or consistent.
Okay, show it.


I cannot provide answers, reasons, or specificities for 'ruling-class, non-scientific items' - only you can. I can speculate. You do not strike me as an arbitrary, vaguely discriminate pyromaniac. Or one of Hume's little helpers. I can always ask Hume about his bonfire, if you were innocently playing with his matches.
Look, I have said what I have said; make of it what you will.
Very well. A Google Canada search for "Hume's bonfire" yields 37 results. I encourage everyone to run this search, study the results and make of it what you will too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Lynx has been socially conditioned to believe that scientific progress leads to 'good things'. Lynx asks: How can realizing that science is a social process help us optimize scientific progress?

This is driven by the class struggle, and other social processes, and individuals have little impact on that.


Okay, show it.

Done it, here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm


make of it what you will too.

Hopefully, a bonfire...

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 11:06 pm
Lynx:
This is driven by the class struggle, and other social processes, and individuals have little impact on that.
This satisfies my concern.
Time for a recap:
My concerns are based upon my priorities.
One of my priorities is to find ways to improve the human condition.
For all intents and purposes, this priority determines my analysis of new information.
Therefore, the purpose of my analysis is to satisfy this priority, and by extension, my concern.
Knowledge of social constructivism and its implications do not appear to be of any use in improving the human condition. While I recognize that consideration of social constructivism can help us paint a more accurate portrait of reality, such recognition in of itself has not been shown to have any bearing (+ or -) towards my priority or concern.
Therefore, I can conclude that social constructivism is of no concern to me.
Disposal:
I recognize that this item may be of concern to others.
Therefore, I shall not ask that social constructivism be incinerated by Rosa Lichtenstein or her representatives.
I will recommend that it be archived - for historical and reference purposes.
A record of this recommendation should also be kept - for statistical purposes.

Your turn, what is your recommendation? Break it down into 'steps'.


Done it, here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm
I'm clearly not the target audience for that essay. You are refuting philosophy/ideology I have not read, nor understand. So DM's are following meaningless, regressive ruling-class metaphysics? Well then, focus on the ideas, not who or what created them. It's like you're making an emotional appeal to these advanced Marxists by labeling DM thought equivalent to 'ruling-class' thought. What makes you think they would drop it (in perhaps much the same way they embraced it), for that reason alone?

I see ideas, not dead people.
I see ideas being used, or left unused. No bonfires.
I see people with or without ideas.
I see people with or without ideas who can work with other people.
I see people who cannot work with themselves, or with others.
I see it's time for me to shovel the snow.

Hopefully, a bonfire...
marshmallows...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Your turn, what is your recommendation? Break it down into 'steps'.

I recommend that you learn more about social constructivism before you make up your mind.


Well then, focus on the ideas, not who or what created them.

Done that, too. My anti-dialectics Essays run to over a million words now --, so that should keep you busy for while.


It's like you're making an emotional appeal to these advanced Marxists by labeling DM thought equivalent to 'ruling-class' thought. What makes you think they would drop it (in perhaps much the same way they embraced it), for that reason alone?

Not so; I show in unprecedented detail that this 'theory' is far too confused even to be assessed for its truth or falsehood, and I then go on to reveal why this is so -- and that is because it was derived from traditional (but far more sophisticated)ruling-class theories that suffer the same fate.

Moreover, I agree with you. DM-fans will never abandon this 'theory' for they hold on to it for contingent psychological reasons.

More details here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292439428 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=74567&view=findpost&p=1292439428)

I have worked these ideas out extensively here:

Essay Nine Part One:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

Essay Nine Part Two:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

Essay Ten Part One:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20010_01.htm

These essays have been summarised here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm

Use the 'Quick links' to go to "Practice" and "Why Dialecticians Cling to this Theory".

Finally, you will need to get up a lot earlier in the morning to catch me out, sunshine! :)

I have every base covered...

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 04:04 pm
Lynx:
I recommend that you learn more about social constructivism before you make up your mind.
If I learn more about social constructivism, will I discover a practical use for it?


Well then, focus on the ideas, not who or what created them.
Done that, too. My anti-dialectics Essays run to over a million words now --, so that should keep you busy for while.
But I don't believe in dialectics. Why punish me for neglecting to read about it?


These essays have been summarised here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm
Summarized, winterized there better not be any baroque stuff.


Finally, you will need to get up a lot earlier in the morning to catch me out, sunshine! :)

I have every base covered...
Covered for whom?
I would archive all ideas that do not yield tangible results. If that archive were set ablaze, it would dwarf your bonfire. Don't cover your bases on my account, our priorities are different. As for the fractious DM's, you can ask them to reconcile their beliefs in favor of more urgent matters. If they refuse, why concern yourself with them? Are they the only fish in the sea, the only people you someday hope to work with? It does look like future comrades will continue to read the texts of the 'superstars' at the expense of your essays.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


If I learn more about social constructivism, will I discover a practical use for it?

It is a scientific method, which is itself socially conditioned -- unless you are into the sociology of science, the answer then has to be 'No'.


Why punish me for neglecting to read about it?

A better question: Why the hell do you keep asking about it then?


winterized there better not be any baroque stuff.

Are you ready to baroque and roll? If not, stay away.


Covered for whom?

Anyone who tries to steal a base.


If they refuse, why concern yourself with them? Are they the only fish in the sea, the only people you someday hope to work with? It does look like future comrades will continue to read the texts of the 'superstars' at the expense of your essays.

Practically to a man or woman they already refuse to read my essays -- so tender are their eyes, I suspect.

I bother with them only in so far as I need to understand their intransigence, and thus explain it as partly the effect of dialectics.

Now, this has gone on long enough about me, so this is my last post in this thread unless something new crops up.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 08:46 pm
Lynx:
A better question: Why the hell do you keep asking about it then?
I suppose its because we read more about you and your opposition to dialectics than dialectics itself. Your efforts overshadow your essays. Your arguments with DM's on RevLeft are difficult to follow for non DM's. These going-ons seem rather strange for the casual observer.

Are you ready to baroque and roll? If not, stay away.
I have heard of baroque music, yet never really listened.
There was a problem with the link, but I believe it was a page I partially read several months ago.



Covered for whom?
Anyone who tries to steal a base.


If they refuse, why concern yourself with them? Are they the only fish in the sea, the only people you someday hope to work with? It does look like future comrades will continue to read the texts of the 'superstars' at the expense of your essays.

Practically to a man or woman they already refuse to read my essays -- so tender are their eyes, I suspect.
Perhaps their belief in dialectics is shallow while your refutation of it is deep. It's something they've read. It's something you've studied. Two different approaches.


I bother with them only in so far as I need to understand their intransigence, and thus explain it as partly the effect of dialectics.

Now, this has gone on long enough about me, so this is my last post in this thread unless something new crops up.
And I thought this was all about me! Your essays require an even more simplified version so tender eyes can read and study them. You already know this.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 08:48 am
This has been split, with the lower sections posted in Science, in the new thread Progress in Science'.
I'm very annoyed at this split as I am now unable to participate in a conversation I was previously active in and enjoying.

If you are going to spirit away threads from OI to other fora, the least you could do is leave the OI thread intact so those of us in the wilderness can continue our conversation.

[FireFry]

my philosophy is deterministic, that is, the last minutes of the universe as it is existence are predetermined to happen by the laws of our physical universe. That is, if there ever was a god, he would be a diest god.

Where he had set up the universe as it is, the laws and the properties of individual sub-atomic particles and had created the abstract forces in the universe (time, space, etc) and created individual particles (photons, electrons, etc..) and just "let it run" it's course according to the laws of physics.

So, if you had the power to create the universe, and the laws that govern it, you would have the power to predetermine the way the universe would end.. and hence, what would happen when the universe was in functional existance through most of it's "lifetime".

There are no alternate realities, things are only are as they can be. And if there is a god, such as the one I described, he certainly can't be found or discovered by any religious text or organization. And if he does interact with our world, it certainly isn't in the most obvious headline catching ways.

Of course, in any communist/anarchist collective society, religious organizations would be abolished, and we would all be free to philosophise on the issue of whether or not there is any evidence for a god.

My evidence for a god is based on the principles of determinism, and that the universe fleeting notion that the universe is so meaningless and abstract that it must be a creation of some whacko / psychotic big guy in the sky.