Objective Truth

[Rav]

Since when are human desires for how things should be, relevant to scientists?

What in the world are you talking about? Barely two replies in and you're so disconnected from the original context that it's ridiculous. Why can't you engage in discussion and stay on point?

Let's make it simple. Let's pretend that I made my statement about being able to derive a basis for morality from a consideration of the nature of who and what we are, 5000 years ago, long before science, as we know it, even existed.

Now, try attacking it again, without trying to drag irrelevant bullshit into the proceedings.

 

[Rav]

Why do you say "mere" matter? Matter is a phenomenal thing that can act in millions, perhaps billions, of different ways.

Indeed. In fact matter, it seems, is so phenomenal that it can manifest as all the things that theists feel we need to invoke something additional to account for. In a sense, then, they are stripping the universe of some of it's most profoundly incredible characteristics, assigning them elsewhere, and then looking upon what's left with contempt, because it now seems inadequate.

I think this probably goes some way to explaining why theists are so much like nihilists. They don't see nature as a miraculous thing in and of itself, which is a terrible pity if you ask me.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Indeed. In fact matter, it seems, is so phenomenal that it can manifest as all the things that theists feel we need to invoke something additional to account for. In a sense, then, they are stripping the universe of some of it's most profoundly incredible characteristics, assigning them elsewhere, and then looking upon what's left with contempt, because it now seems inadequate.

You my friend are good. I was thinking the same thing in a slight different context. I doubt I could so eloquently place the idea, but you have to give the thiests credit for finding a common word for the miss match of pure thought we fail to find in words.

I wish for only a moment we all could subvert to the anchient forms of simplistic thought and pure objective reasoning, but my friend remember; not every seed will grow to form a tree, but those that did and have serve as a potential for even the smallest of seeds to grow twice the height.

 

[wynn]

What in the world are you talking about? Barely two replies in and you're so disconnected from the original context that it's ridiculous. Why can't you engage in discussion and stay on point?

Let's make it simple. Let's pretend that I made my statement about being able to derive a basis for morality from a consideration of the nature of who and what we are, 5000 years ago, long before science, as we know it, even existed.

Now, try attacking it again, without trying to drag irrelevant bullshit into the proceedings.

I think you are investing into this open forum discussion personal issues between us.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

No, he's really not. This is a bad habit of yours, in which you stray so far from the topic the rest of us are discussing that it makes us stand back and wtf for a second.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

What do you mean? I'm asking for an argument, as you can see by reviewing my posts.What the hell is "universally observed" and how is it relevant? If it is not the case that relativism is indefensible, then the statement that it's not indefensible is true. Is that the kind of thing that you mean?Does it? I imagine that would depend on what you mean, which yet again appears to be anybody's guess.

I don't know how to make this anymore clear, by the mere and simple fact you are demanding an argument, which requires logic and objectivity through premises and conclusion, is my proof that relativism is false. You are asking for objectivity from someone other then yourself, indirectly demonstrating that you acknowledge truth exists outside your own mind. If you truly were relative, you would not be asking for me to "prove" anything but would ultimately express "your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth, it's all relative."

 

[wynn]

Arioch, Rav -

Do you believe that science cares about what people desire or don't desire?

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Whether science cares or not it is the greatest tool we have for understanding the both the cause of suffering and the effects it has on us, and is thus the best tool we have for answering ethical questions on the basis of what does and doesn't cause suffering. Your question is irrelevant.

Of course, you still haven't answered my question, do you need me to repeat it again?

 

[ughaibu]

I don't know how to make this anymore clear. . .

Step one: is this an accurate statement of your argument:

1) relativism and the principle of non-contradiction, are incompatible
2) any argument offered in support of relativism will need to rely on the principle of non-contradiction
3) therefore, any argument offered in support of relativism will be inconsistent.

If "yes", then go on to step two:

First, you will need to demonstrate that your premises are plausible, and that will be difficult, because on the face of it, they're both false. Certainly, in order to defend premise 1, you'll need to explicate the notion of relativism that you're addressing. After all, it might turn out to be a notion that nobody has any interest in defending. Second, you will need to be clear about the nature of the incompatibility, mooted in premise 1, and state the inference by which this incompatibility entails your conclusion.

If "no", then please clearly state what your argument is. That means give numbered premises, attempt to establish the plausibility of those premises, and state how your conclusion is entailed.

the mere and simple fact you are demanding an argument, which requires logic and objectivity through premises and conclusion, is my proof that relativism is false. You are asking for objectivity from someone other then yourself, indirectly demonstrating that you acknowledge truth exists outside your own mind.

Is not an argument, it's waffle.

Next, step three:

You will need to explain what "indifferentism" is and defend a premise, which in conjunction with your first argument, entails your second conclusion.

Because:

as things stand, you haven't shown that relativism is indefensible and you haven't shown that it it were, this would entail indifferentism.

 

[Rav]

@wynn --

No, he's really not. This is a bad habit of yours, in which you stray so far from the topic the rest of us are discussing that it makes us stand back and wtf for a second.

@wynn

For the record, that's it exactly.

I'm done with this discussion until you choose to address my comments at face value.

 

[Arioch]

@Rav --

I may not always be right, but it's a habit I've tried to cultivate.

 

[wynn]

Indeed. In fact matter, it seems, is so phenomenal that it can manifest as all the things that theists feel we need to invoke something additional to account for. In a sense, then, they are stripping the universe of some of it's most profoundly incredible characteristics, assigning them elsewhere, and then looking upon what's left with contempt, because it now seems inadequate.

I think this probably goes some way to explaining why theists are so much like nihilists. They don't see nature as a miraculous thing in and of itself, which is a terrible pity if you ask me.

If your whole life you've eaten only unripe apples, and then one day, you taste ripe apples, you'll not want to eat the unripe ones anymore.

Have you considered that theists may have experiences that you don't have?

Experiences that make "life as it is usually lived" seem dull?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Arioch, Rav -

Do you believe that science cares about what people desire or don't desire?

There are a number of issues here as I see it (for what that's worth!): -
'Science' per se is defined in the Concise Oxford dictionary as: -
"a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of, and experiment with, phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe".

As such, 'care' within scientific objectivity is for the accurate design of tests and rationalisation of results to be of the utmost rigour to determine valid findings, and these may then be interpreted with 'care' and 'caring' through risk analysis to account for any potential impacts of the outcomes on specific stakeholders or interest groups.

In this context, 'people' would normally be classified into a series of groups according to their potential interests as 'stakeholders' - and scientific experiments or developments could be deemed 'caring' in so far as each of the stakeholder groups' sets of defined interests were able to be met.

There is an approach used called Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) ,Checkland, P (1983) which identifies stakeholder groups in software development as a guide, and these can be interpreted as : -
Customers, Users or 'Providers', Owner, Environment
Clearly each of these groups will have 'benefits' and 'disbenefits' arising from any possible research outcomes, and the level of CARE' assigned for any of these groups may vary in science just as it does in society at large, with greed being a very difficult form of bias to filter out completely, along with corporate self-interest in all its manifestations.

- so to answer your question : -

there is no doubt that business interests guide much if not most of the scientific research and developments that take place around the world, and business relies on supplying products or services that people desire for their existence.

Governments spend vast sums on scientific research including counter-terrorism - the safeguarding of the population from what people 'don't desire' .

It is perfectly possible for science to care about what people desire or don't desire, but first you must refine the question to account for different people as 'stakeholders' to determine the extent to which care may or may not exist in a given situation.

Whenever anyone finds themself in a net 'disbenefit' situation as a stakeholder for a given scientific development, they should cry loudly to make their position heard and accounted for - but it may seem like nobody cares in the end - and right now across the world science is producing products which satisfy secular stakeholder groups to the detriment of their own and our own spirituality - BECAUSE SPIRITUAL VALUES AND SPIRITUALITY ARE NOT BEING FACTORED INTO STAKEHOLDER RISK ANALYSIS - if it was seen as being important as environmental then there would be all kinds of hypothetical scenarios being included - but hey - are we just going to sit here and let them ???

Hope this helps.

 

[Rav]

If your whole life you've eaten only unripe apples, and then one day, you taste ripe apples, you'll not want to eat the unripe ones anymore.

Have you considered that theists may have experiences that you don't have?

Experiences that make "life as it is usually lived" seem dull?

You know, back when I was Christian, I used to walk the streets and talk to random strangers about God, Bible in hand. Not just one or two either - I'd do it for hours at a time, wherever I happed to be. Not only that, I'd visit synagogues, temples, catholic churches, protestant churches, pentacostal churches, ISKON venues (such as crossways), Scientology centers... the list goes on. I'd basically go anywhere where I could talk to people about God. Sometimes I'd participate in worship (whatever form that took), and other times I'd discuss doctrinal issues. During that period of my life I honestly can't imagine that there would have been too many people who had more exposure to spirituality and religion, and differing philosophical/theological viewpoints and personal outlooks, than I had. Perhaps there would be some, but I was definitely right up there. When I wasn't doing all of that, I was directly engaged in activities within my own church.

What I don't want to do here is attempt to adequately articulate the depth, scope and intensity of my own personal spiritual experiences. Some of them are very personal, and it would require more time than I'm willing to devote to this right now. Suffice it to say that I feel certain that there's not a single theist on these forums who could legitimately invalidate those experiences if I did. In other words, I've tasted these ripe apples you speak of, and I've never encountered a description of any other apple that seemed obviously superior.

What you don't seem to understand, and probably aren't even willing to accept, is that I never abandoned my spirituality. I embrace it now just as much as I once did. It's just not theistic anymore, unless you count my own particular take on pantheism to be a 'theism". I don't long for ripe apples like you do, because I have some. But that is not meant to be slight against you. No matter how much we bump heads around here, I sincerely hope that you get yours eventually.

 

[wynn]

I wasn't being judgmental, I just tried to further the discussion.
I myself have no theistic experiences to the effect of "ripe apples vs. unripe apples." I am just exploring different lines of reasoning. (Although several posters here somehow think that I am promoting theism or something to that effect.)

But somehow, what you've said about theism and your theistic experiences just doesn't seem particularly elevated to me. I've read things that seem a lot more elevated than what you describe. I expect that someone who claims to have had tasted the ripe apples of theism would speak differently than the way some self-proclaimed ex-theists here do.

 

[wynn]

@wynn --

Whether science cares or not it is the greatest tool we have for understanding the both the cause of suffering and the effects it has on us, and is thus the best tool we have for answering ethical questions on the basis of what does and doesn't cause suffering. Your question is irrelevant.

And whoever doesn't get along with the dictate of mainstream science, should get themselves to a mental institution, right?

 

[Rav]

But somehow, what you've said about theism and your theistic experiences just doesn't seem particularly elevated to me. I've read things that seem a lot more elevated than what you describe. I expect that someone who claims to have had tasted the ripe apples of theism would speak differently than the way some self-proclaimed ex-theists here do.

There's an ideal time and an ideal place for everything. And if there's not, there's a time and place that is close enough. Sciforums is, to me, not a place that is ideal for sharing one's most fantastic metaphysical musings or the ideas that one cherishes the most. Sciforums is a jungle. Sciforums is unforgiving. Sciforums is the place you come to when you want your personal philosophy set upon by a bunch of vicious wolves. So the only thing you'll generally get from me in a place like this is good old fashioned intellectual debate, with only an occasional splash of something more substantial. And I love engaging in discussion around here. It has a sharpening effect. It brings things into focus. It expands horizons and exposes truths. That is why I am here.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Rav is a small portion, tailored for forum use, of a person you know almost nothing about.

 

[wynn]

There's an ideal time and an ideal place for everything. And if there's not, there's a time and place that is close enough. Sciforums is, to me, not a place that is ideal for sharing one's most fantastic metaphysical musings or the ideas that one cherishes the most. Sciforums is a jungle. Sciforums is unforgiving. Sciforums is the place you come to when you want your personal philosophy set upon by a bunch of vicious wolves. So the only thing you'll generally get from me in a place like this is good old fashioned intellectual debate, with only an occasional splash of something more substantial. And I love engaging in discussion around here. It has a sharpening effect. It brings things into focus. It expands horizons and exposes truths. That is why I am here.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Rav is a small portion, tailored for forum use, of a person you know almost nothing about.

But you judge others all the same, even if you reveal just a small part of yourself here.
And it is from this act of judging others that I make considerations about your spiritual attainments.

 

[Rav]

But you judge others all the same, even if you reveal just a small part of yourself here.
And it is from this act of judging others that I make considerations about your spiritual attainments.

I don't think you understand. A playing field has been set up in here, and the rules have been written by the actions that take place. It's an arena in which people gather to try to demonstrate why everyone else is wrong. There is some more wholesome game play that goes on amongst it all, but the position that I choose to play is often a reactive one.

For example, in this thread you tried to invalidate the legitimacy of a philosophical position of mine, so I defended vigorously. That's the game I come here to play.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

And whoever doesn't get along with the dictate of mainstream science, should get themselves to a mental institution, right?

Reported as a straw man argument.