You have, to date, provided only 1 reference. You are in no posistion to demand references from others.
Since you have not challenged my post #96 as accurate source materal, may we take it for granted that you do accept these definitions? Up to this point, your debating seems to be to simply throw unsupported accusations, and never to make a cited reference. This is unacceptable. Make one or no more than two points. Support them. Otherwise this boils down to a confusing bedlam.
For the record and from the first link in post 96 Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."
actually I have provided two - and if you examine the context they were made you would see that they are comments about general states of affairs (IOW the texts that they come from are more detailed accounts of the extent of the situtation) still, if you want to argue that a lack of philosophical understanding somehow isn't an impediment for a scientist making philosophical claims or that science has not fallen into the state of thinking that it can explain EVERYTHING, feel free to offer a few suggestions why (aside from words to the effect "Yr stinky 'n funny lookin 'n so is yr brother" etc etc)
then I guess he wouldn't be relying on premises like say a rational person would I would have thought most people could get it straight off the bat perhaps I am being a bit simplistic bu then you seem to have a remarkable talent for making the straight forward incomprehensible so I guess it was done in good measure anyway, for what its worth, try logic - preferably the syllogistic variety for the sake of simplicity and truth . After glancing at these, it appears that you have issues more with the truth of theism than the rationality of it ....
Supe so IOW you are saying sound premises are an issue of truthfulness? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! glad you agree it involves issues of faith (for those outside of the arena of direct perception) so basically your argument is "the claims of different religions are contradictory because it is an axiomatic fact" should I attempt to find the end of your regress or simply accept your opinions in confidence? In the same general way, there is a consensus amongst theists about the nature of god, but for some reason (perhaps your bias or lack of familiarity with the said field) you tend to digress Physics is a developing logical system of thinking whose foundations cannot be obtained by extraction from past experience according to some inductive methods, but come only by free fantasy. -einstein I see Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and how do you know this? sounds like yet another post dated cheque I am often amazed that people can hold themselves as intelligent in science by sitting on the maxim "we don't know but we know" :shrug:
Oh well LG. I'll stay in my corner (the one that has actual measurable effects in the world) and you in yours. Good luck and all that.
the next q is whether there are any effects in this world that have causes you can't measure Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Good q. Lets say there are. Take string theory. This postulates that all particles are made of (caused by) tiny string-like things vibrating in different ways in up to 11 total dimensions. This is a serious candidate for a "theory of everything". Does any serious physicist claim that string theory is true? No. Why? Becaue currently we have no way to measure these little strings. We can't come close to the energy required to pin down their properties and determine which solution to the maths of string theory (if any) is correct. So, by your own admission, there is so much that you can't measure about whatever god/entity/force you subscribe to, why do you invest so much authority in it? And if you claim "direct perception via training" as your answer, what level of egomania does it take to think that your subjective experience is anything other than a delusion or some other medical condition? The egotism of theists is one of their more outstanding characteristics. At least atheists admit what we do and don't know. You claim that you are really the humble ones because you bow and submit and give all of the credit for any damn thing you do to some god. When in reality your ego is such that you exalt yourselves above all else as the one and only favored creations of a universal creator who made the entire cosmos for your benefit. Astounding egocentrism.
I think you have missed the point considering that everything must be capable of being measured (ie empiricism is the truth the light and the way) indicates the very faults you are perceiving in theists - subjectivity, egocentricity, artificial monopolization of knowledge etc I have repeated the argument numerous times already, but just to recap in case you have forgotten The vedas does not deny 1) within nature there are regularities; 2) knowing the regularities, one can predict certain events in nature; 3) thus a reliable body of knowledge about nature is useful; 4) such knowledge is taught in a language of numerical measurement. Such knowledge gleaned through these means is called pratyaksa The problem is that the universe is a display of the unlimited supreme and that humans are inherently limited in the following ways imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality" tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc Thus to hold the words "reality" and "measurable" as synonymous is foolishness. this is to say that pratyaksa (empiricism) is limited, somewhat distinct from the phrase "completely useless". IOW empiricism works fine for our relative working environment but is useless when it attempts to fill the unlimited dimensions of the macro or microcosm
So please repeat for me how your theistic approach (direct perception) is validated without resorting to measurement of some kind? And how, with an imperfect organ like the brain, you could hope to achieve such a pristine direct perception? Why is the brain, which processe this perception, not subject to the same limitations as any other empirically limited "device"?
to reiterate again, higher than the senses (empiricism) is the mind (rationalism) and higher than the mind is consciousness. IOW on the platform of consciousness the use of the mind and senses is there, but consciousness is not approachable by empirical processes (you can't see what you are seeing with, although consciousness enables one to express the nature of seeing) with theistic processes, you have the noumena of our self (namely consciousness, and not the mind or the senses) interacting with the noumena of the cosmic manifestation (namely god, and not some feeble new territory of the macro/microcosm))
I'm sorry LG, but unless you can stop using hyperbole and oblique wording, I can't assess that last sentence as anything other than unsupported mystical jibberish.
ok lets unpack it noumena means ultimate cause so this statement says that it is the theistic idea (lets keep things theoretical and friendly huh) that the ultimate cause of having senses and a mind is consciousness and this statement says that the ultimate cause of the cosmic manifestation is god, a conscious entity, and not some unknown aspect of the macro/microcosm) so taken together, these statements explain why empiricism can't do the job of theism. Empiricism takes the senses as the ultimate authority in knowledge and the latest adventures into charting the macro/microcosm as the ultimate in the knowable. theism says that there is a whole other dimension of reality that is behind (ie the noumena) not only the phenomenal (empirical) world but also the means (ie the senses) we use to collect information of the phenomenal world.
Nice new word for me. Thanks! I neat idea. Completely unsupported by facts though, you'll grant. Right? Another nifty idea without a shred of substance. Moving on... So, a couple of factually unsupported and substanceless statements say that empiricism can't assess factually unsupported and substanceless ideas. I completely agree. Ok. First, I disagree that empiricism take the latest adventures in discovery as the ultimate in the knowable. There are always new frontiers and the current is not limited by empiricist philosophy. Secondly, empiricism as I understand it does not take the senses alone as the ultimate authority, but the intellect as informed by the senses. Yes? Ideas generated by the intellect as based on sound, measurable or directly inferrable phenomena. That's all well and good, but how, without resort to measurement or objective verification of any kind, can you ever say any of your ideas are anything other than mental fabrications? You can't. Well, you can say it, but you have no way to defend it in a world of senses and physical phenomena.
Supe hopefully its taken the oblique slant off things and once again, facts are supported by practice and practice is supported by theory - hence my suggestion that we keep things civil by discussing the theory of it, since your current attempts at validating or invalidating anything on the topic are meaningless ditto above no even if you examine empiricism on its own merits it doesn't do the job .... unless you can explain how working out of these limitations 1. imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality" 2. tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake 3. tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert 4. a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc enables entrance to the macro/microcosm :shrug: thus the new frontiers represent the latest version of the knowable the more it is inferred, the further it moves away from empiricism and into rationalism - ie dealing with concepts and not necessarily facts - for instance your inability to even discuss what are presented as theoretical concepts about god indicates that you are deeply dyed by empiricism and less by philosophy there are lots of things that are verified without measurement - eg justice, love, etc these things are qualified by their qualities, and in this way take on an objective form - for instance suppose someone punched you in the stomach and repeated kicked you in the teeth while you were on the floor in a pool of blood. If, when you asked them why they did that, they said "because I love you", you could detect something irregular between their activities and their words because "love" exists as an objective form thats because the world of the senses and physical phenomena is not absolute or complete - the senses are limited and manifestations of a more subtle phenomena and so to is the physical world
