|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Do we live in a post-truth world?
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Boogie
quote:
I don't understand.
An interesting part of the journey towards understanding.
"The anarchists, the socialists, the fascists and the communists who make up the Democratic Party ..."
"Ideologically you go for the news source which will report an incident the way you want to hear it".
"The most important thing is to be educated"
"We're actually thinking for ourselves".
A mass of regurgitated and confused thoughts, demonstrating prejudice, a diseased critical capability, and a very limited ability to "think for ourselves".
Breitbart, Fox News and Talk Radio brainwashing.
[ 04. January 2017, 09:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I find it interesting that some Christians talk about objective reality, that God is real and so on, whereas as far as I can see, this would not happen in a scientific context. I mean, that a scientist makes observations about appearances, and it is not his/her job to speculate about what these appearances are.
I suppose this is an off-shoot of relativism and skepticism, but it seems to free science up from too many philosophical speculations, which if I remember rightly, was recommended by Bacon, in about 1620!
Of course, there is plenty of philosophical speculation about what these appearances consist of, and some scientists join in, perhaps not always wisely. Hence, scientific realism is a live issue, but it's not essential to scientific method.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A mass of regurgitated and confused thoughts, demonstrating prejudice, a diseased critical capability, and a very limited ability to "think for ourselves".
Yes.
One thing that throws us off, I think, is the belief that the liars always understand that they are lying.
Narratives are the thing that people find compelling. People, news sources and everyone else, accept a narrative and then identify facts and stories that confirm and illustrate it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
a scientist makes observations about appearances, and it is not his/her job to speculate about what these appearances are.
Excellent point.
I guess a parallel would be that a theologian might make observations about what the Scriptures appear to say. It is not his/her job to speculate about whether those sayings themselves are objectively factual.
Maybe that only works in an inerrant world.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hence, scientific realism is a live issue, but it's not essential to scientific method.
"Realism" is itself a somewhat slippery term.
For example here (plus related links) ..
If use of the scientific method uncovers paradoxical or counter-intuitive findings, (which it has done and continues to do), then it is a useful tool to help in the development of our critical appreciation of the world in which we live. A kind of antidote to both automatic thinking and received wisdom.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hence, scientific realism is a live issue, but it's not essential to scientific method.
"Realism" is itself a somewhat slippery term.
For example here (plus related links) ..
If use of the scientific method uncovers paradoxical or counter-intuitive findings, (which it has done and continues to do), then it is a useful tool to help in the development of our critical appreciation of the world in which we live. A kind of antidote to both automatic thinking and received wisdom.
Yes, scientific discoveries have had a shattering impact on our views of reality, I suppose. At the same time, people are quite conservative as well, which is fine. Thank goodness we're not consistent.
But I think quite often science is construed as being 'materialistic', well, in method, yes. But you can do it even if you're a voodoo practitioner, or whatever, or if you think that reality is virtual, in some way.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
One thing that throws us off, I think, is the belief that the liars always understand that they are lying.
Lying is intentional deceit. Not sure how one does this without some degree of self-awareness.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's an extremely important intellectual consequence of being a Christian that there is an objective truth.
No. It is not objective, not in the slightest. It is a "truth" only in one narrow definition of truth.
This is a core of the problem. Humans have always lived in a time where truth is subjective. The problem now is it is easier to find an echo-chamber of one's own liking and distrust of the mainstream has hasn't lead to critical thinking, but uncritical acceptance of whatever bullshit makes one content.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl: quote:
I mean, that a scientist makes observations about appearances, and it is not his/her job to speculate about what these appearances are.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Have you ever actually met a scientist? They speculate about their observations *all the time*. Sometimes, as with the Theory of General Relativity, a scientist has a new idea that doesn't fit with the prevailing orthodoxy which is subsequently proved to be correct. Then all the scientists who defended Newtonian physics (or whatever) end up with egg on their faces, and a new generation of scientists gets another pair of shoulders to stand on.
Scientists argue with each other, and reason in advance of their data, and make mistakes. They may be armed with a powerful method for investigating the universe, but they're still human.
And a scientific theory is rarely accorded the status of Truth (at least by scientists); usually it's 'this is the best explanation we can come up with of the observable phenomena'.
[ 04. January 2017, 16:59: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quetzalcoatl: quote:
I mean, that a scientist makes observations about appearances, and it is not his/her job to speculate about what these appearances are.
Have you ever actually met a scientist? They speculate about their observations *all the time*. Sometimes, as with the Theory of General Relativity, a scientist has a new idea that doesn't fit with the prevailing orthodoxy which is subsequently proved to be correct. Then all the scientists who defended Newtonian physics (or whatever) end up with egg on their faces, and a new generation of scientists gets another pair of shoulders to stand on.
Scientists argue with each other, and reason in advance of their data, and make mistakes. They may be armed with a powerful method for investigating the universe, but they're still human.
And a scientific theory is rarely accorded the status of Truth (at least by scientists); usually it's 'this is the best explanation we can come up with of the observable phenomena'.
Well, many thanks for chopping off most of my post, thus helping to misinterpret it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The thing about scientists and scientific thought is that these observations and ideas work within an empirical framework (which is the core reason that Dawkins is mistaken). They make statements that hold within that framework. As far as they have identified.
And it is all subjective when applied to the real world, because the real world is mostly empirical, but not necessarily always. Like it is mostly Newtonian, but not always. We can use the principles to function, but we cannot be certain that things work because the principles are correct, or just because they serve sufficiently well in these cases. And they work empirically, meaning that they can be replicated.
Of course this doesn't mean that it can be dismissed (as Trump and suchlike do). It holds and works, and can serve to inform our decisions. But it is the wrong place to look for definition of truth.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Hawking is a scientist who has put forward philosophical ideas about reality - in his book 'The Grand Design', he talks about 'model-dependent realism', which is a different twist on relativism. The puzzling thing is that in the same book, Hawking announces that philosophy is dead. I suppose he thinks that model-dependent realism is not a philosophical construct - hmm.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's an extremely important intellectual consequence of being a Christian that there is an objective truth.
No. It is not objective, not in the slightest. It is a "truth" only in one narrow definition of truth.
This is a core of the problem. Humans have always lived in a time where truth is subjective. The problem now is it is easier to find an echo-chamber of one's own liking and distrust of the mainstream has hasn't lead to critical thinking, but uncritical acceptance of whatever bullshit makes one content.
Well, that made me wonder what 'objective truth' means. I suppose something that is true, even if nobody thinks it is? Or something agreed upon by everybody? Or something that exists, whether or not we perceive it?
That still doesn't get us out of the subjective state that we are all in. I think the term 'intersubjective' has been coined precisely for this purpose, since at least we can say that a certain number of people agree on X.
Truth? Hmm.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If a tree falls in the forest, it will still crush you no matter if no one hears your scream.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that made me wonder what 'objective truth' means. I suppose something that is true, even if nobody thinks it is? Or something agreed upon by everybody? Or something that exists, whether or not we perceive it?
An objectively true statement is a true statement whose truth depends largely upon what the statement is about and no more than minimally upon the person making the statement.
An objectively false statement is a false statement whose falsehood depends largely upon what the statement is about and no more than minimally upon the person making the statement.
If someone talks about objective truth they are asserting the possibility of making statements that are either objectively true or objectively false. (Assuming they're not confused which often people on the internet discussing this subject are.
To assert the existence of objective truth is therefore, as you imply, to assert that something might be true even if everyone thought otherwise.
(In general if I assert that the subject matter about which I am talking is objective I am asserting that the truth or falsehood of my statements does not depend solely upon me, and that therefore I might be wrong. If I claim truth is subjective I am unless I'm confused denying the possibility that I'm wrong.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
One thing that throws us off, I think, is the belief that the liars always understand that they are lying.
Lying is intentional deceit. Not sure how one does this without some degree of self-awareness.
Well, that's the thing isn't it? Because a lot of people get labelled liars regardless of whether they believed their claims were true or not. Brexit is one example, but there are plenty of others.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Because a lot of people get labelled liars regardless of whether they believed their claims were true or not. Brexit is one example, but there are plenty of others.
Yes, all brexiteers were lying or all were not. 🙄
BJ, among others, might have been being scrupulously honest, but his behaviour suggests otherwise. Either he was lying about wanting to trigger article 50 or he had a sudden brainwave post referendum. Neither shows him in a particularly good light. So lying, stupid or both; your choice.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Masses are constantly controlled by lies. They couldn't be controlled without lies. Two thousand passengers aboard the stricken Titanic could not be told the true nature of their predicament if order was to be maintained.
Revolutions provoked by the abuse of power and blatant use of lies can have actually have a quality of honesty about them, even though the consequences usually turn out negative.
It could even be argued that if a lie brings about a desirable outcome then that, in itself, makes it a kind of *truth*.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Dude, don't bogart whatever you are smoking.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It could even be argued that if a lie brings about a desirable outcome then that, in itself, makes it a kind of *truth*.
I really don't like the sound of that.
One could (although I'd hope most people wouldn't) argue that whatever brings about a desirable outcome - even telling a deliberate falsehood - is therefore good. That's yer basic consequentialism, that is. And I think that's dangerous enough.
But to claim that a deliberate falsehood actually becomes true if it brings about a "desirable" outcome. I mean, What The Frege?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And it is all subjective when applied to the real world, because the real world is mostly empirical, but not necessarily always. Like it is mostly Newtonian, but not always. We can use the principles to function, but we cannot be certain that things work because the principles are correct, or just because they serve sufficiently well in these cases. And they work empirically, meaning that they can be replicated.
No. The world is not Newtonian. It seems to be when you're going slow enough and your instruments are too gross to spot the difference. But the world is not Newtonian.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I consume what I think is 'quality' news media. On TV, that includes the ABC (Australian) and PBS (American), both organisations whose charter requires fair and balanced reporting (I think). I used to read The Age Newspaper in print and online, but since they put up a paywall I just use the ABC, and occasionally the Guardian Australia.
I grew up in the Fifties and Sixties in a home where the ABC and The Age (Fairfax) were revered and trusted institutions - and with good reason, because they used to make every effort to present the news in an objective and professional manner.
Since then both have taken a radical ideological turn toward the left, and while I would still trust them not to deliberately tell outright lies, they habitually distort their material through blatant and tendentious omissions, selections, slants, emphases and prioritising.
I still read the Fairfax press and listen to the ABC (and greatly appreciate its Classical FM, and the discussions on Radio National), but am very careful to balance their input with news from other, dissident sources.
Any and all news "consumed' ( as you put it), needs of course to be filtered through a "hermeneutic of suspicion".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
It is bizarrely ironic that the right has now adopted the parody of postmodernism that conservatives used to hate. Actual postmodernism is the rather modest assertion that anything that is apprehended must be apprehended from some point of view, which for each of us is conditioned by our historical, cultural, and personal situation, and there is no POV so transcendent that it ceases to be a POV at all and is simply "objective truth." And furthermore, those POVs that accord with the interests of those with power are privileged in social discourse and appear to be self-evident. Therefore, in the pursuit of truth it is particularly important to challenge POVs that draw their credibility from social power (e.g., the perspectives of wealthy, white, heterosexual men) and to bring suppressed perspectives (e.g., those of women, people of color, queer people, etc.) into the discourse and give them equal weight.
Conservatives used to complain that this was relativism, it meant that all beliefs were equal (by which they really meant that the POVs of privileged straight white men were no longer being accorded their deserved dominance). Now a Trump surrogate, Scottie Nell Hughes, can say “There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts,” and go on to explain that if they have the power to convince people of a lie, then the lie becomes true (here). This actually turns postmodernism on its head, while proving its point about the relationship between power and truth.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing about scientists and scientific thought is that these observations and ideas work within an empirical framework (which is the core reason that Dawkins is mistaken).
Could you say about what in particular?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Masses are constantly controlled by lies. They couldn't be controlled without lies. Two thousand passengers aboard the stricken Titanic could not be told the true nature of their predicament if order was to be maintained.
I heard another interesting piece of info the other day - that there was a fire in one of the coal storage places before the ship left Belfast and was not known to be burning by passengers boarding at Southampton. Also this was on the side that hit the iceberg, so the side was weaker and because they were having to try to use up that burning coal, the ship was going faster than it would have done otherwise. Human error all the way.
Apologies for a bit of a tangent, but thought it was interesting enough to mention.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re Titanic:
I'm watching Wednesdays' "The Late Show, with Stephen Colbert", right now. He just talked about it, then ran a cute cartoon about it. Who knew the ship itself drank coffee to wake up?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm guessing it will probably be on CBS.com or YouTube tomorrow.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing about scientists and scientific thought is that these observations and ideas work within an empirical framework (which is the core reason that Dawkins is mistaken).
Could you say about what in particular?
He argues that anything that is not empirically provable is not true. The problem I have is that his definition of "true" is purely within an empiricist ontology - in other words, what he is saying is that anything that is non-empirical is not valid. Whereas there are other valid non-empirical ontologies within which Christianity is valid.
He ends up being very limited in his view. If it doesn't fit his worldview then he dismisses it as not real. Which is a schoolboy error in thinking.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing about scientists and scientific thought is that these observations and ideas work within an empirical framework (which is the core reason that Dawkins is mistaken).
Could you say about what in particular?
He argues that anything that is not empirically provable is not true. The problem I have is that his definition of "true" is purely within an empiricist ontology - in other words, what he is saying is that anything that is non-empirical is not valid. Whereas there are other valid non-empirical ontologies within which Christianity is valid.
He ends up being very limited in his view. If it doesn't fit his worldview then he dismisses it as not real. Which is a schoolboy error in thinking.
He actually says "All truths are scientific truths," which is self-negating.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dude, don't bogart whatever you are smoking.
Glass of red is sufficient ta.
I can't understand how anyone can assert that we aren't constantly fed with lies and, furthermore, are often perfectly content with self-imposed happy deceptions.
Not saying we aren't interested in the truth, of course we are, but serve it up neat on a sinking ship and it is likely to cause far more problems than it is going to solve.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Does Dawkins apply that to love? Does he have a scientific test for it, think it doesn't exist, ignore it, or gloss over it?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
He actually says "All truths are scientific truths," which is self-negating.
How about, "All truths are scientific truths except this one"?
This sounds remarkably like the rock that scuppered logical positivism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Any chance of a citation for all those 'quotes' from Dawkins?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
(Conservative theists all live in a pre-truth world.)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
He argues that anything that is not empirically provable is not true. The problem I have is that his definition of "true" is purely within an empiricist ontology - in other words, what he is saying is that anything that is non-empirical is not valid.
Thank you for your reply. Checking on the definition of 'valid' I see that it is: quote:
an argument or point having a sound basis in logic or fact
I have read most of RD’s books and found him to be always precise in his use of englishso I would be surprised if he had said that something was true, or in fact not true, if any doubt was involved. However, since I'm always a bit shaky on philosophical language, I might have read you incorrectly! quote:
Whereas there are other valid non-empirical ontologies within which Christianity is valid.
He ends up being very limited in his view. If it doesn't fit his worldview then he dismisses it as not real. Which is a schoolboy error in thinking.
Well, not surprisingly, I do not agree that he is 'limited in his thinking'!
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Any chance of a citation for all those 'quotes' from Dawkins?
Seconded.
[ 06. January 2017, 19:12: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Does Dawkins apply that to love? Does he have a scientific test for it, think it doesn't exist, ignore it, or gloss over it?
Love can exist perfectly well in the absence of the truth. It will though generally perish should a truth that was hidden come to light.
Sir jimmy savile OBE tragically provided us with the best,(or worst), example of that. But even this in no way proves that love doesn't exist.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dude, don't bogart whatever you are smoking.
Glass of red is sufficient ta.
I can't understand how anyone can assert that we aren't constantly fed with lies and,
Not debating that lies are used, only that they must be.
quote:
furthermore, are often perfectly content with self-imposed happy deceptions.
It is more that it fits {i]something[/i] not that happiness need be that thing.
quote:
Not saying we aren't interested in the truth, of course we are, but serve it up neat on a sinking ship and it is likely to cause far more problems than it is going to solve.
Continuing then lies will fix nothing. If a more honest approach aware consistently used, it would be the new normal.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
He actually says "All truths are scientific truths," which is self-negating.
How about, "All truths are scientific truths except this one"?
This sounds remarkably like the rock that scuppered logical positivism.
The Blessed Karl Popper (PBUH) maintained that a proposition belonged to the realm of science if it was falsifiable. But a non-falsifiable proposition may well be true. In 'The God Delusion' for example, Dawkins, invokes the existence of parallel universes, which may well be true but isn't, as things stand, falsifiable. Many scientists believe in the existence of alien life, of which the same can be said. The late Derek Parfitt believed in the existence of an objective non-theistic morality, and was genuinely upset that he could never persuade Bernard Williams of the same. Plenty of historians believe, with caveats, on the murder of the Princes in The Tower by Richard III, or at least agents acting on his behalf, or the unreliability of the life of Tiberius by Suetonius. The idea that propositions can be neatly classified into scientific truth and falsehoods doesn't really survive close examination. Pretty much everyone holds beliefs which they think, rightly or wrongly, are true but which cannot realistically be incorporated into the canon of science.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Science has its own methods of enquiry and verification. Other fields have theirs, including both philosophy and theology.
We cannot have a functioning intellectual and human culture if the only form of investigation anyone accepts is scientific. Even apparently unconnected activities such as the writing of fiction are attempts to explore truths, even the truth, through means which are not empirically verifiable. If the scientifists among us don't like it, that's just tough. It must remain so - they cannot be allowed to veto that form of exploration. Or the reflective theological form.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Continuing then lies will fix nothing. If a more honest approach were consistently used, it would be the new normal.
Never said lies fix anything other than that they can, in some circumstances, serve a purpose. Not particularly keen on lying myself. But anyone who tries to make sense of the wider World is liable to don the armour of cynicism where the outpouring of truth is concerned.
Lies, half-truths and falsehoods are capable of keeping the lids on a large containers of shite which, were they to be removed, would only cause an unholy mess. It isn't though difficult to see how this model works equally, if not more devastatingly, the other way around.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Science has its own methods of enquiry and verification. Other fields have theirs, including both philosophy and theology.
What is the method and verification used in theology?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is it love?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Science has its own methods of enquiry and verification. Other fields have theirs, including both philosophy and theology.
We cannot have a functioning intellectual and human culture if the only form of investigation anyone accepts is scientific. Even apparently unconnected activities such as the writing of fiction are attempts to explore truths, even the truth, through means which are not empirically verifiable. If the scientifists among us don't like it, that's just tough. It must remain so - they cannot be allowed to veto that form of exploration. Or the reflective theological form.
Well, I agree, but who has been saying that scientific investigation is the only type that is feasible? People keep mentioning Dawkins, but I have googled sentences such as 'scientific truths are the only truths', and other suggested quotes from him, with no result.
In his more scientific works, such as 'The Blind Watchmaker', I don't think he goes into stuff like this. I know that he writes barmy stuff on Twitter, but maybe someone has some solid citations available?
Who else?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
