Doing The Right Thing

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
hajrafradi
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by hajrafradi » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:49 pm

tbieter wrote:
I suggest that science, philosophy, and religion deal with different questions.
I have to think about that. I know for fact that science does rely on philosophy; inasmuch as speculative theories emerge from philosophy, which are scrutinized by the scientific method. Most obvious example is Einstein's Relativity Theory, and Darwin's Evolutionary Theory. RT started out as a purely philosophical hypotheses structure, and by fluke, scientific measurements proved it scientifically viable. DET started as an observation, and became a theory which was impossible to prove at first, but later genetic science supported it seamlessly.

I know for a fact that many religious dogma started as a knowledge gap, which was proven wrong by science.

I know that logic can't be false.

If someone were to tell me that religious theories are exempt from logic, then I don't have anything to say to that person and I don't want to listen to that person. This is a very, very basic and rigorous requirement in discourse, to accept the rules of logic. If a person were to discount them, then that person should not post on a philosophy board.

I also know that the Christian scripture is replete with logical self-contradictions. This is its link to philosophy, since logic is a branch of philosophy.

I don't quote links to volumes of readings for others to jump onto and forcing them to read to accept my points. I state my points concisely, in a fluid and literary manner, which make sense. I don't employ the fallacious argument of forcing others to accept my point of view by telling them to go and read books. In fact, if I can't make a point, without quoting a link, then I don't make a point.

I am proud of this ability of mine, and I would be grateful if others could do something similar. If they can't, if their only argument is to direct others to read books, I am sorry, I can't accept their point, as they are making none.

Altogether, I reject the notion that philosophy, science and religion have no overlapping domains. Yes they do, very many. One is justified in analyzing overlapping domains from any of all three disciplines.

Walker
Posts: 5045
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by Walker » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:24 am

hajrafradi wrote:
Walker wrote: Brahmacharya is often associated with celibacy. The realization of equanimity makes any Life experience appropriately as rich as it can be, thus Brahmacharya is more about perpetual awareness of unfolding creative energy not limited to the sexual.
Well, that goes without saying. Very true.

But Brahmacharya is confoundingly difficult to attain. It takes years, nay, decades of intense training by way of forceful meditation and Britmayandra Yoga, on top of the non-animal meat diet that one has to follow, to get the self to detach itself from itself, and become one with the oneness.

So while you were absolutely right, the practical aspect of creative energy flow used for increased awareness to experience the richest as life can be experienced, derails mostly on the weakness of humans, who are famous for being able to resist anything but temptation. In practical terms, your head wants to explode after a week of non-release, and it is to no avail, because a normally functioning human will have nocturnal emissions in that case, or the equivalent in dream-state female orgasms.

I am not arguing with you, I basically agree, I'm just saying it takes a giant of a human to attain, and execute Brahmacharya, because one needs Brahmacharya level of awareness with incredible energy-transflux, to attain Brahmacharya.

No ifs, buts and ands about it.
Oh come on. Plenty of folks find the joy of the moment in and of itself. Brahmacharya by any other name would still smell as sweet.

Certainly there is joy in eating. To your point and to statistics of First World Countries, the joy of not eating certainly is more elusive when food is abundant. Brahmacharya finds the joy in both eating and not, which is an energetic characteristic of jnani.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:14 pm

hajrafradi wrote:
tbieter wrote:
I suggest that science, philosophy, and religion deal with different questions.
I have to think about that. I know for fact that science does rely on philosophy; inasmuch as speculative theories emerge from philosophy, which are scrutinized by the scientific method. Most obvious example is Einstein's Relativity Theory, and Darwin's Evolutionary Theory. RT started out as a purely philosophical hypotheses structure, and by fluke, scientific measurements proved it scientifically viable. DET started as an observation, and became a theory which was impossible to prove at first, but later genetic science supported it seamlessly.
That's one way of viewing it. But you haven't defined what philosophy is there, so you are leaving yourself open. I like Isiah Berlin's definition which is that philosophy deals with questions that are not only ones we can't answer, but ones where we are not certain what a correct answer needs to look like. The point being that once we know how to arrive at a correct answer to a question, there is some science or other knowledge domain to which the question itself then belongs.

If you find Isiah Berlin's definition persuasive, then you have a problem.
Religion uses supernatural revelations and stuff like that to answer questions pertaining to its domain.
Science uses observation, and cannot of necessity take supernatural causes into account.
Which all leaves very little inquisitive overlap, if any.
If you choose some other way to define philosophy, that leaves a potential problem with philosophy of religion and philosophy of science not overlapping, which shouldn't be too difficult a case to make.
hajrafradi wrote:I know that logic can't be false.
I am tempted to ask what the logical foundation of that claim would be. I hope it wouldn't be a dogma or, worse, something sort of circular.
hajrafradi wrote: I don't quote links to volumes of readings for others to jump onto and forcing them to read to accept my points. I state my points concisely, in a fluid and literary manner, which make sense. I don't employ the fallacious argument of forcing others to accept my point of view by telling them to go and read books. In fact, if I can't make a point, without quoting a link, then I don't make a point.
[/quote]
While I see the sense is complaining that tbieter doesn't bother putting much of his own effort into making his points (you aren't the first to point this failing out), that's a pretty glowing review you just gave yourself there.

User avatar
hajrafradi
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by hajrafradi » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:38 am

tbieter wrote:
I suggest that science, philosophy, and religion deal with different questions.

Thus, when you use science to answer a religious question, you err and cause confusion.
Science, philosophy and religion deal with different questions, but they do have large areas of overlapping of their domains.

For instance, scientific findings have been scrutinized for their ethics. Some scientific research has been banned because of philosophical and religious considerations; for instance, cruelty to animals and/or to humans has been minimized in science experiments. I don't know how you can deny (which you actually did not) that the three endeavours have a huge common ground.

To me, and for my interest, the common underlying feature that guides my thinking is logic. Logic is a part of the discipline in philosophy, but technical know-how and technical-scientific development has used it extensively to its advantage. I don't see why logic can't or ought not to be applied to religious questions.

I agree with you, that science can't answer religious questions, and vice versa. The two, however, had huge overlapping areas before the age of Renaissance and the Reformation.

I agree with you, I shouldn't use science to probe religion. But I am not sure if I ought not to use logic; and I am not sure if comparing science and religion is a use of either to explain the other. The comparison is made with having parallel constructs in view in both science and religion; the comparison is made purely by using logic and perhaps fairly established empirical knowledge. Therefore I don't think I am violating your view that religion and science can't be used to explain each other when I use logic and common factual knowledge to compare the two by some or another feature that both science and religion claim to possess.

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

User avatar
hajrafradi
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by hajrafradi » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:33 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: you haven't defined what philosophy is there, so you are leaving yourself open. I like Isiah Berlin's definition which is that philosophy deals with questions that are not only ones we can't answer, but ones where we are not certain what a correct answer needs to look like. The point being that once we know how to arrive at a correct answer to a question, there is some science or other knowledge domain to which the question itself then belongs.

If you find Isiah Berlin's definition persuasive, then you have a problem.
I am afraid but I do differ.

Many philosophical questions have been answered, albeit not by philosophy, but by science.

A few examples: The nature of crystalline memory, first theorized by Kierkegaard; the formation and nature of primitive societies, first theorized by Hobbes; the advantages of technical development, and the disadvantages of stagnation, as (the opposite) put forth by Socrates.

Yes, there was a shift, the questions were not answered by philosophy, but by science, and you can argue, very well indeed, if you want to, that the philosophical questions ceased to be philosophical questions and became scientific questions. Do you agree with that?

If you exclude "answerables" from philosophy, then you exclude the entire discipline of logic.

Therefore I humbly must report that I can accept Isiah's Berlin's definition of philosophy (with the provision that we can't answer philosophical questions or even know what they look like, if we only use philosophy, which he did not actually state in your quoted version) but it does not prove me wrong; it does not prove that philosophical questions can't be answered; and the proof fails with my propositions, which states that philosophy and science (and religion) have common, overlapping areas of scrutiny. If one discipline answers the other's question, then it is clear that they have overlapping areas of scrutiny.

And I don't mind leaving myself open to scrutiny and criticism, therefore I shan't provide a definition for what philosophy is. However, I invite you to give me one or more other definitions of philosophy that you think is 1. true and 2. will destroy my proposition if accepted.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Religion uses supernatural revelations and stuff like that to answer questions pertaining to its domain.
Science uses observation, and cannot of necessity take supernatural causes into account.
Which all leaves very little inquisitive overlap, if any.
I am afraid but I do differ again.

I differ with you on the question on what religion uses. You excluded observation. Religion uses observation heavily in its system.

Please reconstruct your opinion on this.
FlashDangerpants wrote:If you choose some other way to define philosophy, that leaves a potential problem with philosophy of religion and philosophy of science not overlapping, which shouldn't be too difficult a case to make.
This is not an argument; you are making unsubstantiated statements. I shan't respond to this. Added, you simply say "that leaves a potential problem" which is true either way: if it helps my case, or if it helps tbieber's case. You don't say which. You made an ambiguous, unsubstantiated statement. What did you expect I should say to this?
FlashDangerpants wrote:
hajrafradi wrote:I know that logic can't be false.
I am tempted to ask what the logical foundation of that claim would be. I hope it wouldn't be a dogma or, worse, something sort of circular.
Wow... you are "tempted" to mistake circular reasoning for systems that use axioms. I hope you are not "tempted" too much. And fear not, your hope has come true: it wouldn't be, it is not, a dogma, or worse, something sort of circular.

I am sorry to have sounded sarcastic, but your style is very slippery. You don't come out and make a claim; you make as if you made a claim, but if someone takes you to task, your wording will excuse you, you can say, "I only said I was TEMPTED" to think", etc. I find your style weasely, and I say so without meaning to offend. You make innuendos, but you don't have the guts, so to speak, to stand behind your words, so you make a non-committal statement each time. This is disconcerting, you sound weasely, I say this without trying to offend you, and you sound dishonest(*), inasmuch as you don't commit to your opinions, but you leave an escape route for yourself.
(*) Dishonest, to the extent ONLY that you only seem to make a statement while not make it at the same time and in the same respect.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
hajrafradi wrote: I don't quote links to volumes of readings for others to jump onto and forcing them to read to accept my points. I state my points concisely, in a fluid and literary manner, which make sense. I don't employ the fallacious argument of forcing others to accept my point of view by telling them to go and read books. In fact, if I can't make a point, without quoting a link, then I don't make a point.
While I see the sense in complaining that tbieter doesn't bother putting much of his own effort into making his points (you aren't the first to point this failing out), that's a pretty glowing review you just gave yourself there.
I know I had sounded haughty there. But please forgive me, I was carried away by my anger at the even more haughty, albeit not sounding so, instructions by tbieter directing me to read books to see his point. Hence my haughtiness.

Incidentally, if you disagree with the review in question, then please, I would like to hear your precise criticism, instead of your sarcastically-inclined innuendo.

Walker
Posts: 5045
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by Walker » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:22 pm

hajrafradi wrote:
Walker wrote: Non-propagators obviously have a driving force other than propagation.
Well, the non-propagators have the driving force AS IF they were propagators. These are, in my opinion, genetically-hard wired driving forces to replicate a goal common to all humans, and all animals. If a specimen does not propagate, s/he still behaves as if, because the gene commands or compels him or her to do so.

Life is replete with man's ingenuity to follow the driving force, and not follow it. For instance:

- Most sex acts: copulation and intercourse, between two fertile people of compatible child bearing qualities do not result in pregnancy.

- Most people are constantly on the lookout for opportunities of pleasures of acts of propagation.

- Those who have no chance of propagation with the sex act, still keep on being on the lookout for any opportunity.

- Most of us care about children, an overwhelming majority of all humans, indeed. This applies whether we are propagators or not.

Genetically coded behavior is hard to break. Priests, nuns, monks, who are celibate, and do not wank off in the corner at all when it's dark, or in any other circumstances, have beaten the code.
Job 5:7 Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward. KJV

Looks like “sparks fly” is a literal term after all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016 ... ns-when-s/

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:13 pm

hajrafradi wrote: Yes, there was a shift, the questions were not answered by philosophy, but by science, and you can argue, very well indeed, if you want to, that the philosophical questions ceased to be philosophical questions and became scientific questions. Do you agree with that?
I do agree.
hajrafradi wrote:If you exclude "answerables" from philosophy, then you exclude the entire discipline of logic.
I do not entirely agree.
A subject must have a certain type of question to answer ('what happened in the past?' = History; 'Does God have nipples?' = Theology ).

A subject must also have internal questions about what is the correct way to address its particular questions (read the Bible and look for a nipple count vs pray and ask the potentially benippled deity directly). I think it is fair to say that over time every subject changes its methodical approach here and there.

Philosophy's internal questions tend to revolve around logic and conceptual organisational factors. So logic for purposes of philosophising seems like an area where philosophy can deliver answers. On the whole I think our team gets to call dibs on logic. But I wouldn't want to get stabbed by angry mathematicians so I may have to be flexible there.
hajrafradi wrote:Therefore I humbly must report that I can accept Isiah's Berlin's definition of philosophy (with the provision that we can't answer philosophical questions or even know what they look like, if we only use philosophy, which he did not actually state in your quoted version) but it does not prove me wrong; it does not prove that philosophical questions can't be answered; and the proof fails with my propositions, which states that philosophy and science (and religion) have common, overlapping areas of scrutiny. If one discipline answers the other's question, then it is clear that they have overlapping areas of scrutiny.
I am certain that they often discuss the same phenomena. But do they actually answer each other's questions?
If a question can properly be described as religious, I feel it probably has some kind of spiritual or supernatural connotation.
If a question is properly defined as scientific, it has some kind of, well, you know, science stuff with experimental observations, or data or something.
A valid science question though can never have any supernatural component, if that supernatural thing is some form on unmeasurable entity that is not subject to physical causation.
If a religious leader asks a question that has no supernatural component, one which can be answered by scientific method, it wasn't a religious question, it was just a religious person asking a science question.
hajrafradi wrote: I differ with you on the question on what religion uses. You excluded observation. Religion uses observation heavily in its system.

Please reconstruct your opinion on this.
Religion and theology are works of people with eyes in their heads and the ability to incorporate observation into things that they do.
I'm sure that observation has some part in both the questions they ask and the answers they proffer. I'm surprised this needs explicit statement.

I am not familiar with any scientific observations being part of religion, obviously there's some pretty weird religions out there so some silly man is bound to be worshipping a test tube as I write these words. But for instance, if we are to consider the activities of Scientology to be a matter of religion, this on its own seems like a reason to doubt that they are rigorously scientific.

Literary theory isn't about observation of the real world, but I'm fairly sure lit crits do mention various observations on occasion. That doesn't make their subject overlap in any way with science.
hajrafradi wrote:
FlashDangerpants wrote:
hajrafradi wrote:I know that logic can't be false.
I am tempted to ask what the logical foundation of that claim would be. I hope it wouldn't be a dogma or, worse, something sort of circular.
Wow... you are "tempted" to mistake circular reasoning for systems that use axioms. I hope you are not "tempted" too much. And fear not, your hope has come true: it wouldn't be, it is not, a dogma, or worse, something sort of circular.
If logic cannot be false, does this entail that whatever is logical must be true?

There are plenty of people who would argue about that with you.
It's not my thing really. I just noticed a rather bold and dangly claim so I poked it because I am an arsehole.

If you fancy an argument on that subject I probably won't bother joining in that one.
I wouldn't go with the axiom thing though if I were you, you will only end up having to argue in a circle that this is logical.
hajrafradi wrote:I am sorry to have sounded sarcastic, but your style is very slippery. You don't come out and make a claim; you make as if you made a claim, but if someone takes you to task, your wording will excuse you, you can say, "I only said I was TEMPTED" to think", etc. I find your style weasely, and I say so without meaning to offend. You make innuendos, but you don't have the guts, so to speak, to stand behind your words, so you make a non-committal statement each time. This is disconcerting, you sound weasely, I say this without trying to offend you, and you sound dishonest(*), inasmuch as you don't commit to your opinions, but you leave an escape route for yourself.
(*) Dishonest, to the extent ONLY that you only seem to make a statement while not make it at the same time and in the same respect.
Meh, I'm not that committed to most of the positions I've taken here so far. I am presenting what I currently consider the most plausible position in the matter, but with awareness that there might be something in there I haven't thought of yet. That strikes me as another way of saying I am open to persuasion if you have sound logical arguments to present. But they should be tested, no?

That said, I am generally of the opinion that it is bad science to even consider a religious question as as a candidate for scientific scrutiny because of all the supernatural gubbins that is excluded from that art. I similarly consider religious types who resort to pseudo scientific arguments against evolution to be straying from their patch in bad faith. If their religion tells them that the Earth is X years old or whatever, then observational proof is beside the point, they believe God did it, that's all they should need to believe on the matter.

As far as I know, this is the first time I have ever agreed with tbeiter. It's not terribly likely to happen again for a while. But I could be wrong on either count. Forgive me, I am learning to live with my magnificent fallibility.

If I don't show sufficient commitment to a point I make, you may consider that weasel like. But you are treating a mode of inquiry as a pissing contest. I just don't care enough about winning or losing for that.
hajrafradi wrote:
FlashDangerpants wrote:
hajrafradi wrote: I don't quote links to volumes of readings for others to jump onto and forcing them to read to accept my points. I state my points concisely, in a fluid and literary manner, which make sense. I don't employ the fallacious argument of forcing others to accept my point of view by telling them to go and read books. In fact, if I can't make a point, without quoting a link, then I don't make a point.
While I see the sense in complaining that tbieter doesn't bother putting much of his own effort into making his points (you aren't the first to point this failing out), that's a pretty glowing review you just gave yourself there.
I know I had sounded haughty there. But please forgive me, I was carried away by my anger at the even more haughty, albeit not sounding so, instructions by tbieter directing me to read books to see his point. Hence my haughtiness.

Incidentally, if you disagree with the review in question, then please, I would like to hear your precise criticism, instead of your sarcastically-inclined innuendo.
I'm not familiar with the Oakeshott book.

And frankly I don't understand the point of the Nautilus link in this convo at all. If anything it provides a guide to a potential argument against his, and my points about non-overlapping enquiries (from the limited perspective of branches of science competing to answer similar questions). It strikes me as a poorly chosen link, but it isn't very long and in a self contained way it is quite interesting.

User avatar
hajrafradi
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by hajrafradi » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:16 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
hajrafradi wrote: Yes, there was a shift, the questions were not answered by philosophy, but by science, ... etc etc
Dear FlashDangerpants, I owe you an apology embedded in an explanation.

I wrote somewhere that I write concisely and yet fluidly, in a readily understandable fashion.

This is true. What I left out is that I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE ON THIS FORUM WHO WRITES THAT WAY.

I sounded haughty because I left out this important detail.

You, for instance, are a clear, and you write about complex matters with ease. Your writing is not taxing to follow. You, and I should say many others on this forum, write well.

So if I made the impression that I had thought I am the only good writer, I must correct myself. I am not unique in being a good writer here in the midst of forum users. Some of us are better, some of us are not better, some of us are sometimes better, sometimes not better.

I apologize for the omission I made and not being inclusive.

User avatar
hajrafradi
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by hajrafradi » Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:44 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:If logic cannot be false, does this entail that whatever is logical must be true?

There are plenty of people who would argue about that with you.
It's not my thing really. I just noticed a rather bold and dangly claim so I poked it because I am an arsehole.
I did not make the claim. You made it. You actually employed a Strawman fallacy. Then you questioned the validity of your own claim, not mine, and you declared that MY claim was dangly.

Yes, I do sound like I am on a pissing contest. I won't deny that. Some call it logically arguing, and trying to prove the other wrong. Some call it pissing contest. It's all in the language.

I must assure you that I have nothing against your persona, or against you as a person. I argue against opinions, not against people. That's why I am so forceful, and most likely in error: People do not realize, because it is not natural to realize, that if I attack a person's idea, it's not because I am attacking the person himself or herself. It's just the idea that I don't agree with that I show or try to show wrong. Nothing personal. And I think it likewise.

There are exceptions to this. I noticed that because of my "pissing contest" style, I anger many people. And eventually they try to anger me back. Very successfully. I must admit I haven't noticed even a slight strain of that in your arguments. I don't think you are attacking my person, either, FalshDangerpants. So all is fair, and I have respect for you, anything.

User avatar
hajrafradi
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by hajrafradi » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:00 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: As far as I know, this is the first time I have ever agreed with tbeiter. It's not terribly likely to happen again for a while. But I could be wrong on either count. Forgive me, I am learning to live with my magnificent fallibility.

I'm not familiar with the Oakeshott book.

And frankly I don't understand the point of the Nautilus link in this convo at all. If anything it provides a guide to a potential argument against his, and my points about non-overlapping enquiries (from the limited perspective of branches of science competing to answer similar questions). It strikes me as a poorly chosen link, but it isn't very long and in a self contained way it is quite interesting.
So... you agree with Tbieter because he contradicts his opinion with his quoted link? :-) :-)

, or you agree with this statement:
tbieter wrote:

I suggest that science, philosophy, and religion deal with different questions.
I would say, the latter.

I suggest that the questions are or can potentially be the same; it is the answers that carry only scientific, or only religious, or only philosophical elements.

Some questions to ponder, which have been asked by all three disciplines:

- what is mind?

- how did the world get created?

- what is the meaning of life?

Very strongly demarcated answers have been given to the SAME QUESTION in each case... and the proposal by Tbieter was, as quoted, that science, philosophy, and religion deal with different questions.

The questions are the same. The treatment is different.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:54 pm

I find it implausible that anyone has ever tried to answer "what is the meaning of life" as a science question. It's an entirely ineffable notion and as such lies beyond their methods of investigation. I don't really think much of it as a philosophical question either tbh.

But, if it has ever been attacked as a science question, it would have required quantifiable physical phenomena of some description. Whereas when approached as a religion question, then it has stuff about God and souls. When a poet asks such a question it is something to do with beauty or what have you. When a philosopher does so, it usually devolves into a lot of mess about Eudaimonia or some sort of personal flourishing.

Syntactically and grammatically it looks like one question which multiple disciplines might want to answer on competing terms. But it isn't. "Meaning of life" doesn't mean the same thing in those contexts just because it is the same set of words.

Much the same applies to the other questions. It makes no difference what answer a scientist gives to "how was the world created?" There is no logical problem with a religious type believing that the forces which made the Earth coalesce from a disk of cosmic dust were themselves created by God. If a believer posits that the world was created 'with history' on June 12th 1976 and everything before that existed only in the imagination of God there is no possible scientific method to consider that claim, given that it lies within the power of such a God to place every atom in the universe just so and then spin it up as if it had been around for billions of years.

The religious question, expressed more completely, is "how did God make the world". The science question is along the line of "how did natural forces in a universe that contains only internal physical causes make the world?". The lunatic's question is "how did I make the world?". There's a lot of context dependent stuff that goes into all but the simplest of questions. What defines the simplicity of a question is not the length of the sentence that asks it, but the amount of other stuff you have to tack on to understand it.

The claim that logic cannot be wrong remains dangly. The bit about 'what is logical must be true' was really just an illustration of the sort of problem you are going to have with it. My point being that 'logic cannot be false' is not obviously true and therefore needs expansion. In 4 words you wanted to express an incontrovertible axiom. That isn't a goer. "Wrong logic must be wrong, right logic must be right" would work, but that would be a worthless tautology that nobody would bother expressing.

I'm not saying you can't have the claim. If you want it to be accepted, you may have to put some work into formulating it as the sort of claim that is testable (assuming you didn't like my preliminary test). We have a whole forum dedicated to such discussions (plus lots of maths stuff I don't understand). If you want to test the claim, I'm not the best guy for the job. If I tried hard, I think I would force you to neuter that statement somehow. But if you can persuade Hobbes and Dalek et al, I promise I will roll over.

User avatar
hajrafradi
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by hajrafradi » Sun May 01, 2016 11:31 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:I find it implausible that anyone has ever tried to answer "what is the meaning of life" as a science question.
This does not equate to what you want to equate to. You simply can't imagine the situation. That is not my fault. It's NOT an entirely ineffable notion and as such it does not lie beyond their methods of investigation.

It is that your blind ambition to prove me wrong is guiding your imagination to poverty. That is my opinion, at least, I can't say it as a fact -- maybe you know that you are not giving it a chance, and you simply resist to agree with me for whatever reason you may have.

An example will illustrate.

Science of language class. Linguistics 101. The prof instructs students to compare dictionary definitions of words. "What is the meaning of life? Kruger!!" "Erm, accordign to Merryam-Webster, the meaning of life is, ..." etc.

This renders your entire further discussion superfluous and redundant.
FlashDangerpants wrote: superfluous and redundant part:
But, if it has ever been attacked as a science question, it would have required quantifiable physical phenomena of some description. Whereas when approached as a religion question, then it has stuff about God and souls. When a poet asks such a question it is something to do with beauty or what have you. When a philosopher does so, it usually devolves into a lot of mess about Eudaimonia or some sort of personal flourishing.

Syntactically and grammatically it looks like one question which multiple disciplines might want to answer on competing terms. But it isn't. "Meaning of life" doesn't mean the same thing in those contexts just because it is the same set of words.

Much the same applies to the other questions. It makes no difference what answer a scientist gives to "how was the world created?" There is no logical problem with a religious type believing that the forces which made the Earth coalesce from a disk of cosmic dust were themselves created by God. If a believer posits that the world was created 'with history' on June 12th 1976 and everything before that existed only in the imagination of God there is no possible scientific method to consider that claim, given that it lies within the power of such a God to place every atom in the universe just so and then spin it up as if it had been around for billions of years.
FlashDangerpants wrote:The religious question, expressed more completely, is "how did God make the world".
Maybe. But the question I suggested can also be asked by all three disciplines. You are putting words into my mouth, and defeat the statement you attribute to me, which I actually did not make. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I NOTICED YOU COMMITTED THE STRAWMAN ARGUMENT AGAINST ME. Quo usque tandem abutere, FlashDangerPants, patientia nostra?

Naturally, the rest of your argument and expounding of it can be ignored as you are not referring to what I said but are referring to what you said and attributed falsely to me.
FlashDangerpants wrote:This part can be safely and advisably ignored. The science question is along the line of "how did natural forces in a universe that contains only internal physical causes make the world?". The lunatic's question is "how did I make the world?". There's a lot of context dependent stuff that goes into all but the simplest of questions. What defines the simplicity of a question is not the length of the sentence that asks it, but the amount of other stuff you have to tack on to understand it.
FlashDangerpants wrote:The claim that logic cannot be wrong remains dangly. The bit about 'what is logical must be true' was really just an illustration of the sort of problem you are going to have with it.
The moment you come up with just one (1) example of how my statement can be false, is the moment I'm going to be having problems with it. It is so simple: you are attacking me that it can't be true, and you bring up all kinds of analytical things for argument, but all you have to do to prove me wrong on it is to come up with one example that falsifies it. Why can't you do that? If I am not obviously wrong, as you say, then please stop saying I am wrong with this, until such time that you can substantiate your criticism, which can be done with one stroke, if you can.

Therefore this bit can be for the time being advisably and safely ignored:
FlashDangerpants wrote: My point being that 'logic cannot be false' is not obviously true and therefore needs expansion. In 4 words you wanted to express an incontrovertible axiom. That isn't a goer. "Wrong logic must be wrong, right logic must be right" would work, but that would be a worthless tautology that nobody would bother expressing.

I'm not saying you can't have the claim. If you want it to be accepted, you may have to put some work into formulating it as the sort of claim that is testable (assuming you didn't like my preliminary test). We have a whole forum dedicated to such discussions (plus lots of maths stuff I don't understand). If you want to test the claim, I'm not the best guy for the job. If I tried hard, I think I would force you to neuter that statement somehow. But if you can persuade Hobbes and Dalek et al, I promise I will roll over.

User avatar
hajrafradi
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by hajrafradi » Sun May 01, 2016 11:52 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:If I tried hard, I think I would force you to neuter that statement somehow. But if you can persuade Hobbes and Dalek et al, I promise I will roll over.
You are tasking me with a bar too high for anyone. You want me to convince Hobbes of anything? (And I don't know who Dalek is.) Hobbes mildly abuses me ("your post, {hajrafradi,} is a suicide note for reason") because I suspect he is spiritual if not all-out religious. For your information, FlashDangerPants, no religious debate, or religious-atheist debate has ever convinced anyone who showed up for the debate already committed to one side of anything. Kalvin and Hobbes, Luther and Kalvin, Hus and the Pope, Unitarians and Muslims, have tried. The debate goes on to this day, in some form or in another, and nobody can convince anyone with purely reasonable arguments.

So you made a safe bet there.

At the risk of repeating myself, I repeat: please don't overly fret proving me wrong with my statement about the nature of logic; just come up with one example in which my statement can be shown false. That's all I ask.

You see, you task me with the unattainable, before you could capitulate, and I task you with coming up with a simple simple example for me to capitulate (on a side issue). I still call it fair.

I would like to ask you, and this is a request, not at all an imperative, that in the future you not be blinded by your motivation and ambition to prove me wrong, but to consider my words and my claims for what they are. I also would like to ask you to overlook my provocative style, and look for the meaning and not be swayed (negatively) by my style.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon May 02, 2016 12:10 am

I am not interested in having you as some bitter personal foe.
Point your aggressive posturing at somebody else.

User avatar
hajrafradi
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

Re: Doing The Right Thing

Post by hajrafradi » Mon May 02, 2016 3:44 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:I am not interested in having you as some bitter personal foe.
Point your aggressive posturing at somebody else.
Actually, I am not your foe. We two are on the same side. I find it unfortunate that you took me to task on the issues... and when challenged, I defend myself. Sorry. Wouldn't anyone else on these forums do the same thing? I mean everyone does this here, why single me out as "foe"?

This was a rhetorical question.

I wish you all the best, FlashDangerpants, even if you never talk to me again. I have followed some of the other debates you've participated in, and consequently I truly believe you are a good person. Reading your comments in the other threads, I must say I stand for the same, or put-near similar ideals as you do, please be sure of that.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests