Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So, why can't people like Dawkins actually address religious issues? Why can't the scientific community.

Today, Michael Ruse suggested that the answer was simple. Idiots (my own terminology) like Dawkins focus on a series of issues, taking down one after the other, saying "This is why religion is false."

The issue is, religion doesn't care, and it won't becuase the question that religion really tries to answer is this.

"Why something, rather than nothing."

I'm sorry but thats f*cking brilliant.

Do you feel Ruse is correct in his analysis? Is that actually the ONE question religion tries to answer? Have nonreligious views failed to answer it?

I think you worded that poorly. Quick!! to the edit button.

But if I understand you correctly, I'd say yes, that is a question religion tries to answer, not necessarily the only one. And yes, non-religious (you mean science right?) views fail to answer it because they aren't concerned with it.

I'd hardly call Dawkins an idiot.

Dawkins is one of the biggest idiots I have ever witnessed. Naturally, Phelps is worse...

Originally posted by Nellinator
I think you worded that poorly. Quick!! to the edit button.

It was hard for me to do the mental switch from stats to Philosophy...but I couldn't hold it in.

Originally posted by Nellinator
But if I understand you correctly, I'd say yes, that is a question religion tries to answer, not necessarily the only one. And yes, non-religious (you mean science right?) views fail to answer it because they aren't concerned with it.

My non-religious, I mean ANYTHING, non religious.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Dawkins is one of the biggest idiots I have ever witnessed. Naturally, Phelps is worse...

Interesting choice of the word "naturally"

Originally posted by Boris
I'd hardly call Dawkins an idiot.

Nah, I stand by my new opinon.

LOL!

Dawkins and Phelps are nothing alike, of course Phelps is worse... jesus, Phelps is a racist, insane, homophobic, evil bigot, many will rejoice when that man dies. Dawkins is a great scientist bringing Atheism to the for front and challenging religion the way it should be challenged.

No, infact, Dawkins used to be a brilliant scienist who now ENDANGERS science by involving it in the frivolous public debates.

No, not really. What debates? The only 'debates' I've seen, if you can even call them that, is him promoting his book, talking to mostly, idiotic Christan freaks who will not hear him out.

He is just as idiotic. His arguments are not based on science. They are based on faulty logic and he refuses to be mature or judicious in his decisions.

He then co-opts science as mysteriously supporting his views which it simply does NOT.

And he does go around, interview religious this, and religious that, saying how stupid it all is.

His arguments ARE based on science, he is an evolutionary biologist for Christ sake! They are based on the scientific evidence that we have on the world around us, he is quite mature but does get frustrated I think, and I can hardly blame him.

Some of the people he talks to are total psychos. Scientific facts support his views. And of course he goes around saying how stupid it all is.. well, because it is.. .he's telling the truth.

I think my *bullshit* alarm not only went off, but subsequently exploded.

Have you actually READ his work? He bastardizes science and maks unscientific conclusiongs of the world on false logic that can be as dumb as the "psychos" he talks to.

His work is to the detriment of the credability of science. He subsequently achieves nothing positive. And he doesn't actually address the issue, notably the one I gave above.

Examples?

Of what?

Dawkins is the farthest thiung from an idiot I've ever seen.

Get out much?

I don't have to sit here and be insulted because you treat your oipinions as facts.

And I don't have to listen to your unbased opinons. SO this is real productive. Try logic. Dawkins doesn't have much.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm sorry but thats f*cking brilliant.

I'm sorry, but that's not brilliant. It's lazy.

Why? I think its a wonderful summation of a very key issue.

Originally posted by Alliance
Why? I think its a wonderful summation of a very key issue.

It is a key issue. I don't argue that. But what they want to do is say "this can't be argued. I consider that lazy. That is what "religion" does. It finds issues that can't be argued and claims their answer as their own. God might no be argued with, but his actions and rules are up for debate. This is what is not considered.

Who the eff is "they?"

the selfish gene theory of evolutionary biology is pretty impressive

not to mention fathering the field of memetics

I'd say the brights was going a bit far though, that was a terrible idea

Originally posted by Alliance
Of what?
Examples of Dawkins bastardizing science, examples of him trying to detriment the credibility of science, examples of his faulty logic... you know, examples.

Originally posted by Boris
Examples of Dawkins bastardizing science, examples of him trying to detriment the credibility of science, examples of his faulty logic... you know, examples.

he is just picking a fight with the very people who could potentially destroy the scientific foundations in America (ie, the West)

Even mainstream religious people are weary of science, if they feel like their core beliefs are being attacked by prominent figures in the scientific community, it can lead them to support more radical restrictions on science, which we have already seen.

Originally posted by Alliance
Who the eff is "they?"

"They" are the men who created the religion. Modern religion is the result of a lot of observation. Thousands of years worth, for that matter.

Why is there such determination to disprove religion ?


Just dont shove your religion down my throat, and ill be fine

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Why is there such determination to disprove religion?

It is incorrect, and what is incorrect should not be taught nor believed.

Originally posted by Boris
It is incorrect, and what is incorrect should not be taught nor believed.




Why not ? I am Buddhist, should I not be Buddhist ?

Originally posted by Boris
It is incorrect, and what is incorrect should not be taught nor believed.

But not all religions are incorrect.

Well, most are.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Why not ? I am Buddhist, should I not be Buddhist ?

Well, why are you a Buddhist? What does being a Buddhist do for you that having no religion at all couldnt do?

Originally posted by Boris
Well, most are.

So, your statement is incorrect. Therefore, we sould not believe you, or should we?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But not all religions are incorrect.

Well, the number of religions that are correct is http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8696/kleinergleichrd4.jpg 1

Originally posted by Boris
Well, why are you a Buddhist? What does being a Buddhist do for you that having no religion at all couldnt do?


I am glad you asked:



Buddhism has changed my outlook on life, passions, and people. Although I am not in 100% agreeance with all the teachings of the Buddha, I am in agreeance with most of it.



1) Buddhism aims at overcoming Human Suffering. It teaches us to set ourself free from desires, passions, and conditions that cause us pain. It teaches us that our we are the source of our own happiness, and that we alone are responsble for our own lives and health, not any God or any other person.


It also teaches us to become our own refuge, and not to look for it in anyone else...for no one else has our happiness in thier hands.



2) Buddhism teaches us that we should place compassion and love above all....over come anger, overcome jealousy, and overcome lust for desires which will only cause us pain.


I had a lot of pain in my life..i still have, but i am able to look at it objectively now.




3) The beleif that all Life is One, that everything that dies is reborn, and the possibility that you may live any lives with a new family, or in a new world, or in entirely new circumstances...it sort of forces me to appreciate what i would not appreciate otherwise.


If rebirth is true, and if i will have new families, and new lovers, and new unions in every life time, then it forces me to see other people and animals as my family, not as outsiders.


Buddhism, in my opinion, is the only relgiion which ACTUALLY promotes unity....no other religion does so.





That is a simplified version of my reasoning.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
3) The beleif that all Life is One, that everything that dies is reborn, and the possibility that you may live any lives with a new family, or in a new world, or in entirely new circumstances...it sort of forces me to appreciate what i would not appreciate otherwise.

Here we go, this is incorrect, when you die, you die.

Thats it, no more.

Originally posted by Boris
Here we go, this is incorrect, when you die, you die.

Thats it, no more.


How do you know ?



Have you died before ?

Hahha please.

The concept of an afterlife is too insane to even talk about.

Originally posted by Boris
Hahha please.

The concept of an afterlife is too insane to even talk about.




You didn't answer my question.



How do you know death is the final ? how do you know there is no existance after death ?

Originally posted by Boris
Here we go, this is incorrect, when you die, you die.

Thats it, no more.

You are correct. When most people talk about reincarnation, they do it in a very simplified way that is fundamentally incorrect. However, the theory of Relativity is also, fundamentally incorrect. The true nature of reality (the Mystic Law) cannot be known by humans; but let me help you with reincarnation. We are all connected like waves on the ocean you cannot distinguish the water in a wave from that within the ocean, it is the same water. When a wave disappears, where has it gone? Back into the ocean. Some of the water from one wave will one-day find itself back in another wave in the future. Does that help?

That can be asked to you too! How do you know there is? I think there isn't as there is no evidence throughout the entire course of human history to suggest that there is in fact an afterlife. An afterlife lessens the life we have now, make the most of it, cause once it's gone.. it's gone!

Originally posted by Boris
That can be asked to you too! How do you know there is? I think there isn't as there is no evidence throughout the entire course of human history to suggest that there is in fact an afterlife. An afterlife lessens the life we have now, make the most of it, cause once it's gone.. it's gone!

However, energy cannot be destroyed.

Originally posted by Boris
That can be asked to you too! How do you know there is? I think there isn't as there is no evidence throughout the entire course of human history to suggest that there is in fact an afterlife. An afterlife lessens the life we have now, make the most of it, cause once it's gone.. it's gone!




I don't know...I sed I beleive..


You are the one claiming to know Fact. Not me. So since you know that after death there is nothing, i want you to tell me how you know. I asked you, so please answer my question.

So what, you're talking about energy inside us? The energy of humans? But it can't be created either... yet it is.

Originally posted by Boris
So what, you're talking about energy inside us? The energy of humans? But it can't be created either... yet it is.


There is more to life then just your memeries and thoughts. When you die, you die, but the energy that is you, only changes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are correct. When most people talk about reincarnation, they do it in a very simplified way that is fundamentally incorrect. However, the theory of Relativity is also, fundamentally incorrect. The true nature of reality (the Mystic Law) cannot be known by humans; but let me help you with reincarnation. We are all connected like waves on the ocean you cannot distinguish the water in a wave from that within the ocean, it is the same water. When a wave disappears, where has it gone? Back into the ocean. Some of the water from one wave will one-day find itself back in another wave in the future. Does that help?


Shakyamunison, that is probably the most perfect explanation for Buddhist Theory of Reincarnation, and makes the most sense. You took the ideas out of my head, and formed them into a perfect argument

Originally posted by Alliance
So, why can't people like Dawkins actually address religious issues? Why can't the scientific community.

Today, Michael Ruse suggested that the answer was simple. Idiots (my own terminology) like Dawkins focus on a series of issues, taking down one after the other, saying "This is why religion is false."

The issue is, religion doesn't care, and it won't becuase the question that religion really tries to answer is this.

"Why something, rather than nothing."

I'm sorry but thats f*cking brilliant.

Do you feel Ruse is correct in his analysis? Is that actually the ONE question religion tries to answer? Have nonreligious views failed to answer it? Better nothing than something most-likly false.

See, the thing is science tries to search for the truth, religion makes it up. I'd rather look for the truth, than to make stuff up as if I've accomplished something.

Originally posted by lord xyz
See, the thing is science tries to search for the truth, religion makes it up.

This is a false dichotomy. Science is a methodology, it's not a comprehensive worldview like Christianity.

Originally posted by Ytse
This is a false dichotomy. Science is a methodology, it's not a comprehensive worldview like Christianity. No, it's not a comprehensive worldview, I don't think I said that.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, it's not a comprehensive worldview, I don't think I said that.

Ah, no you didn't. It just seemed as if you were setting it up as a this-or-that kind of thing.

Originally posted by Alliance
"Why something, rather than nothing." ... Is that actually the ONE question religion tries to answer? Have nonreligious views failed to answer it?

That question is pretty much as basic as it gets, though I do believe one could simplify it even further: just plain ol' "Why?" No specifics, no qualifiers, no conditions. Just "Why?"

You could meditate on it. You could see what rises to the surface of the mind as the question sinks in, as individual consciousness opens up to higher modes of knowing (according to mystical thinking). But ultimately, the dreamt mortal can not know the mind and motivation of the Dreamer. The best we can hope for is Love, Energy and Profound Mystery.

Closer to Earth...

A physicist once replied that, Something exists instead of Nothing because Nothing is unstable. Something is inevitable (think quantum-foam action on the metacosmic scale). But one can still ask, "Why?" Science (ie, empirical) is not designed to address this question. It deals with measurable (or at least potentially measurable) entities.

Some philosophers may just shrug their shoulders and say, "Why not?"

I've always thought of everyday religion as the system of the proper relationship between Man and God (not really going into depth about the nature of God; that's more the mystical perspective). From this relationship, we also derive a system of ethics. When religion was more mystical, perhaps, in its past, the Big Question may've held greater importance.

Science is about the "How?"s, not the "Why?"s.

Originally posted by Boris
Examples of Dawkins bastardizing science, examples of him trying to detriment the credibility of science, examples of his faulty logic... you know, examples.

I don't have time right now to engage in meaningless banter with athiest apologists. I havent read The God Delusion, which would provide me the best ammo.

Dawkins claims that science disproves god.

That makes him both incorrect and a danger to the credability of science.Originally posted by Devil King
"They" are the men who created the religion. Modern religion is the result of a lot of observation. Thousands of years worth, for that matter.

Ok, well that statement is not from the "they." This isn't some trick, its a valid question.Originally posted by Mindship
I've always thought of everyday religion as the system of the proper relationship between Man and God (not really going into depth about the nature of God; that's more the mystical perspective). From this relationship, we also derive a system of ethics. When religion was more mystical, perhaps, in its past, the Big Question may've held greater importance.

I'd agree, but I still feel the question is pertenant today, and I don't think anyone really has a satisfactory answer.Originally posted by King Kandy
Science is about the "How?"s, not the "Why?"s.

Which is why people like Dawkins who draw connections between science and athiesm are delusional.

Holy Shit! You think Dawkins is wrong WITHOUT EVEN HAVING READ HIS BOOK!?

Yopu've just lost all credibility. Maybe if you actualy knew what his viewpoint was based on, you'd have a right to criticize it... But you're just doing baseless guessing right now.

LIKE Z0MG IM TYPING IN CAPS! AM I SMART YET!!?!?!?!? LOLKK!

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't have time right now to engage in meaningless banter with athiest apologists. I havent read The God Delusion, which would provide me the best ammo.

Ahahahahahha! Are you serious? How the hell can you even talk about Dawkins and religion without even reading his book on it?

Go read it now.

Science does pretty much disprove religion. Yes you cannot prove that a God does not exist... yet, but you can make a very well informed assumption that the probability is low... very low, minuscule.

Originally posted by Boris
yet, but you can make a very well informed assumption that the probability is low... very low, minuscule.

Perhaps based upon naturalism. But Christians don't make the presupposition that reality is naturalistic.

Originally posted by Boris

Science does pretty much disprove religion. Yes you cannot prove that a God does not exist... yet, but you can make a very well informed assumption that the probability is low... very low, minuscule.

this is the problem

Science can only scientifically prove anything. Religion doesn't adopt that type of logic system. We will never be able to prove a negative.

Dawkins' fatal error is that he doesn't draw a clear line between his science and his opinion. In many genres this is ok, but when you write as a voice for "scientists" people get really uppity about it.

I love the God Delusion, as I am sure you do, however, in that case he is just preaching to the converted.

He launched a salvo in the name of science on really shaky applications of scientific concepts. To scientists and people who are enamored with that type of logic and evidence it is probably fine. To people who don't accept that as the way to view the world, I can only assume being called delusional is insulting.

Originally posted by Boris
Ahahahahahha! Are you serious? How the hell can you even talk about Dawkins and religion without even reading his book on it?

Go read it now.

Science does pretty much disprove religion. Yes you cannot prove that a God does not exist... yet, but you can make a very well informed assumption that the probability is low... very low, minuscule. You see, you are making yourself out to be an idiot. I am 100% sure that Alliance knows more about what Dawkins does than you do. You have shown 0 knowledge of science. You really shouldn't even bother with this conversation because you fail at logic and science.

Do you even realize that Dawkins has published far more than one book? Oh that's right, you never get to see any of that because you aren't qualified. You may shut up before you make yourself look like more of an idiot.

Can you read?

"Reading his book on IT",

It being religion, of course he has many books, yet he has only wrote one book based on religion.

I'm 100% sure that I know more about that book considering I've read it, while he hasn't.

Originally posted by inimalist
Science can only scientifically prove anything.

As apposed to what other type of proof? If something has been scientifically proven, what other proof is left?

Originally posted by Boris
As apposed to what other type of proof? If something has been scientifically proven, what other proof is left?

Personal experience perhaps?

Yet there is no proof in that, no evidence, I mean, I could have a personal experience where I see fairies and flying spaghetti monsters.., does it make them exist, no.. of course not. Personal experience cannot prove anything.

Originally posted by Boris
Yet there is no proof in that, no evidence

According to what? The scientific method? I thought you were asking for standards of proof other than science.

Many people are critical of science for its inability to include subjective experiences.

I'm glad you are a logical person Boris, but lots of people see logic as a flawed way to look at the universe

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm glad you are a logical person Boris, but lots of people see logic as a flawed way to look at the universe

But anecdotal evidence doesn't = illogical. It's just not empirical.

Anecdotal evidence isn't good because someone could have just made it up.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Anecdotal evidence isn't good because someone could have just made it up.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot:

Scientific evidence isn't good because reality could just be an illusion.

But science doesn't assume what it doesn't have to. So let's be fair and not assume the anecdotal evidence is fabricated.

Originally posted by Ytse
Let's put the shoe on the other foot:

Scientific evidence isn't good because reality could just be an illusion.

But science doesn't assume what it doesn't have to. So let's be fair and not assume the anecdotal evidence is fabricated.

The idea that reality is an illusion does not diminish scientific evidence. This is because if something is predictable and adheres to laws, it does not matter if it is an illusion. The outcome will be just as predictable, rather reality is an illusion or not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea that reality is an illusion does not diminish scientific evidence. This is because if something is predictable and adheres to laws, it does not matter if it is an illusion. The outcome will be just as predictable, rather reality is an illusion or not.

I don't mean an illusion like a holodeck program or something where you can observe the "rules" and then make predictions based on them. I mean illusory altogether as in, there is nothing to predict in the first place.

Solipsism, if you will.

Since accurate predictions have been made, it's clearly not impossible, illusion or not.

Originally posted by Ytse
Ah, no you didn't. It just seemed as if you were setting it up as a this-or-that kind of thing. Well, yeah. Religion guesses the truth, science searches and works out the truth. Which would you rather believe?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Since accurate predictions have been made, it's clearly not impossible, illusion or not.

How on earth can you predict something if it doesn't exist? If all you experience is an illusion then you've observed nothing in the first place. So, what exactly are you predicting?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, yeah. Religion guesses the truth, science searches and works out the truth. Which would you rather believe?

Religion doesn't guess a truth. It posits a truth.

Originally posted by Ytse
Religion doesn't guess a truth. It posits a truth. It does not posit the truth, there is no logic behind it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It does not posit the truth, there is no logic behind it.

If you don't think religion posits a truth then you either don't know what posit means or you don't know much about religion.

If I'm wrong, please explain rather than just making baseless claims.

Originally posted by Ytse
...Anyway, this was all to defend my analogy that if you can assume someone providing the anecdotal evidence is fabricating it you can just as easily assume external reality is illusory. But we don't because that would defeat the entire purpose of using this evidence in the first place.

I disagree. Science is held to a higher standard then hearsay. Your analogy is incorrect.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree. Science is held to a higher standard then hearsay. Your analogy is incorrect.

What does science being held to a higher standard (whatever that means) have to do with my analogy?

Originally posted by Ytse
What does science being held to a higher standard (whatever that means) have to do with my analogy?

Hmmmm You don't get it, sorry.

Science is held to a much higher standard than religion.


Scientific findings are constantly revised and re studied...religion is not, religion is only changed through culture, reformation, and economics/politics.


Science aims to be proven, religion does not.


Science does NOT go by blind faith, religion does.


Science is unbiased...most religion is totally biased


If a scientific finding contradicts another scientific law or is not logically acceptable, it is discarded. If a religious doctrine contradicts another religious doctrine, or is not logically acceptable, it is still used.



Sorry Ytse, but science beats religion when it comes to standards.

Originally posted by Ytse
But anecdotal evidence doesn't = illogical. It's just not empirical.

I was paying a compliment, sheesh

but yes

However, the ONLY reason that science appears better is because you are using things that are almost by definition the realm of science.

If the system of logic you use postulates that any pattern we see in the universe is a construct of our pattern seeking brain, science falls apart.

If you say there is no way to ever eliminate all the confounding variables in an experiment, then scientific exploration is not held to very high standards at all.

Its asinine to make the argument in the 21st century, but from a strictly philosophical or theoretical standpoint, science can only prove other science.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hmmmm You don't get it, sorry.

No, I get it. You think we're talking about something we're not. Refer to this post:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8908074#post8908074

We're talking about evidence for or against the suppositions religion makes about reality. And the question asked was which is another standard for proof aside from scientific and I said anecdotal. And as far as this topic goes, since science can't even test these sorts of things I would hardly say it's superior here.

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

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Science is held to a much higher standard than religion.

I wasn't talking about religious doctrine at all.

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

Originally posted by inimalist
I was paying a compliment, sheesh

but yes

Oh, I was just elaborating.

Religious "truths" and scientific truths are BOTH susceptible to whacked out metaphysical claims of being illusions. "God" is not exempt from being an illusion.

Illusion or not, naturalistic, objective and verifiable scientific truths >>> subject and unreliable supernatural explanations.

To save my sanity, I'm skipping the rest of this conversation...gues thats what happens when you slip out of it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Holy Shit! You think Dawkins is wrong WITHOUT EVEN HAVING READ HIS BOOK!?

Yopu've just lost all credibility. Maybe if you actualy knew what his viewpoint was based on, you'd have a right to criticize it... But you're just doing baseless guessing right now.

ZOMG! You know SO much about Dawkins that you DONT EVEN KNOW that hes WRITTEN MORE THAN ONE BOOK, AND WRITTEN COUNTELESS ARTICLES, AND DONE COUNTLESS INTERVIEWS.

ZOMG! I haven't read one book.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You see, you are making yourself out to be an idiot. I am 100% sure that Alliance knows more about what Dawkins does than you do. You have shown 0 knowledge of science. You really shouldn't even bother with this conversation because you fail at logic and science.

Do you even realize that Dawkins has published far more than one book? Oh that's right, you never get to see any of that because you aren't qualified. You may shut up before you make yourself look like more of an idiot.

Thank you .Originally posted by inimalist
Dawkins' fatal error is that he doesn't draw a clear line between his science and his opinion. In many genres this is ok, but when you write as a voice for "scientists" people get really uppity about it.

He launched a salvo in the name of science on really shaky applications of scientific concepts.

Yes, more good points. Dawkins may have started as a scientist, but he doesn't really understand what science is. Thats his fatal flaw. Most of his errors stem from that.

Originally posted by Boris
As apposed to what other type of proof? If something has been scientifically proven, what other proof is left?

Moral, Philosophical, Religious, Social, Historical, etc.

Originally posted by Alliance
Moral, Philosophical, Religious, Social, Historical, etc.

Well, one outta 5 aint that bad... but then again, if something is to be proved that it is from a certain time, then scientific method's are used, hence science being the final true proof of everything.

Then, I'm sorry to inform you you know shit about science.

Science never "proves" anything. It gives us functional best guesses.

Prove I am thinking of a redesign for the 5 dollar bill? Science won't help you there.

And proof is not truth either, so you fail yet again.

Originally posted by Alliance
Prove I am thinking of a redesign for the 5 dollar bill? Science won't help you there. Gasp!! Are you seriously using psychology?

No.

First, psych is not actually a science

Second, you can't prove that I'm thinking of a specific object, even with psych.

Originally posted by Alliance
No.

First, psych is not actually a science

Second, you can't prove that I'm thinking of a specific object, even with psych.

depends on how extensive the neuroimaging is

I noticed you excluded it from science... But you did acknowledge it's existence... You hate that.

Originally posted by inimalist
depends on how extensive the neuroimaging is
Nuh-uh.

Neuroimaging cannot tell ou what I'm thinking...only generally where brain activity is.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I noticed you excluded it from science... But you did acknowledge it's existence... You hate that.

Well, I could consider imaging to be a subfield of medical physics.

Originally posted by Alliance
Nuh-uh.

Neuroimaging cannot tell ou what I'm thinking...only generally where brain activity is.



Well, I could consider imaging to be a subfield of medical physics. That's like saying that the theory of evolution is invalid because we did not see the speciation changes. Neuroimaging can give an excellent idea of what you are feeling... thoughts are a bit trickier.

Originally posted by Alliance
Nuh-uh.

Neuroimaging cannot tell ou what I'm thinking...only generally where brain activity is.


last couple of years there have been some ridiculous breakthroughs in being able to decipher patterns of activation in individuals.

It takes massive amounts of tests to even determine what the individual's particular pattern for any thing is, and the most advanced stuff they have done at this point is predicting movement, but its defiantly something that is theoretically possible with unlimited funds and access to the technology.

argh...

nothing is sacred anymore

YEAH! FIGHT THE POWER!

Indeed.

Here, have a pirate!

Yarrrr!

Originally posted by inimalist


nothing is sacred anymore

Thats a false presupposition of the post-modern movement. However, its incorrect, because ideals are still present in society and certain things are still sacred to individuals.

This "nothing is sacred anymore" concept will end.

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats a false presupposition of the post-modern movement. However, its incorrect, because ideals are still present in society and certain things are still sacred to individuals.

This "nothing is sacred anymore" concept will end.

lol

well

sure told me

I know, Spaghetti is sacred to me.

For it is the body of the FSM.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

well

sure told me

I had an art teacher once who was very post-modernist...I have a strong romantic streak so we had some good discussion.

lol, I'm a pretty strong post modernist, but in good form, it doesn't mean nearly enough to me to argue about it

Modernist or post-modernist?

post modernist

not devout in any way, but ya, I'm pretty sure that there is nothing to be sure about

Then yes...that seems correct.

There was another period like that in history...the Moral Crisis...we made it out of that one and went right into the enlightenment.

lol

I don't know. Some form of post modernism has been incorporated into science (if under completely different philosophical traditions). Scientific uncertainty basically says that we can't take what we know as fact.

However, unlike most post modernists, I see the results of science as indicating that they probably have the best answers, if not the strictly correct one.

There is a functional limity to what is significant. Best is still workable.

Its the accpetance of the approximation, the embrace of fuzzy edges that moves the world today. Thinkers just have to accept that too.

This has been done in both biology and physics. Just beacuse you don't understand something, doesn't mean you can't work with it.

lol, very certainly. Not understanding a concept has never been a reason not to work with it

I do think science does an excellent job of explaining reality, even with the fuzzy edges. Too often people just reject science because it conflicts with what they want to believe. Or ya, they just run to the fuzzy edges where they can say "quantum" and all of a sudden you are supposed to believe what they say.

I've find that the only people that reject science are those that don't actually understand it.

yes and no

there are some pseudoscientists who seem to understand the mechanisms of science enough to be critical of it for not accepting subjective evidence, though they fall apart on the philosophy side of it

but ya, I would say the large majority of people are ignorant of science. I think there is some stat that goes something like, there are 2.5% of americans who could be considered "scientifically literate", which is only marginally larger than the number of scientists in the country (2%).

EDIT: on second thought, I'm sure those percentages are off, as I don't suppose there are 6 000 000 Scientists in America. However, I have heard that meme several times before, so I will leave it up, though I am pretty sure the numbers are not the right ones

Somewhere, there are three republican presidential candidates raising their hands.

oh man, how sad was that?

Originally posted by Alliance
Moral, Philosophical, Religious, Social, Historical, etc.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


And you are the guy that's been called the smartest with sciences?