‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Is Spreading Science Justified By Reason?

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
25 May 2013 19:45
 

If you use words loosely and vaguely, don’t expect cogent discussion to be a result.

 
 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
25 May 2013 19:57
 
nonverbal - 25 May 2013 05:45 PM

If you use words loosely and vaguely, don’t expect cogent discussion to be a result.

Apologies, but this is just pointless dodge ball.  Members seem unable to meet the challenge of this thread, so we keep seeing attempts to shift the focus to something else. 

How about providing your definition of science?  I’ll do my best to agree with it, and then we can get back on track.

 
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:03
 
Hippyhead - 25 May 2013 05:57 PM
nonverbal - 25 May 2013 05:45 PM

If you use words loosely and vaguely, don’t expect cogent discussion to be a result.

Apologies, but this is just pointless dodge ball.  Members seem unable to meet the challenge of this thread, so we keep seeing attempts to shift the focus to something else.

This reminds me of Sam Harris claiming that morality and ethics are one and the same, then expressing surprise at the resulting verbal chaos.

 
 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:07
 

You claim definitional clarity is necessary to proceed.

Ok, so provide it please.

What’s your definition of science?

Like I said, I’ll make every effort to agree with your definition.

 
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:18
 

My definition is irrelevant to your arguments. If I seem to be harassing you, I certainly don’t mean to.

 
 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:24
 
nonverbal - 25 May 2013 06:18 PM

My definition is irrelevant to your arguments. If I seem to be harassing you, I certainly don’t mean to.

You’re not harassing.  I’ll attempt to wait patiently for you to say something relevant to the thread.  No worries, no hurries.

 
 
bardoXV
 
Avatar
 
 
bardoXV
Total Posts:  1058
Joined  10-03-2013
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:25
 

HH and NV, Why don’t you both post your definition of science and go from there, and quit beating around the bush.  Otherwise it just degenerates into a flame war, with nothing acomplished.

 
 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:27
 

I’ve already posted my definition, a few posts back.

The development of knowledge.

 
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:29
 

No flaming has taken place here and I have no intention of starting anything. I’m only making a blunt assertion. If it sounded flame-like, then I apologize to Hh.

 
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:30
 
Hippyhead - 25 May 2013 06:27 PM

I’ve already posted my definition, a few posts back.

The development of knowledge.

Okay—that’s fine, as long as you realize that’s an unidiomatic definition of science.

 
 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:37
 

No harm, no foul, no apologies necessary.

Is spreading science justified by reason?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17707
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
25 May 2013 20:42
 
Hippyhead - 25 May 2013 06:37 PM

No harm, no foul, no apologies necessary.

Is spreading science justified by reason?

I.E. Is spreading the development of knowledge justified by reason. OK, how about no, it should be kept by the strong to suppress the weak. Does that work for ya.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
28 May 2013 12:28
 

Religion teaches us how things most probably can’t be, Philosophy teaches us how things probably should be, and Science teaches how things most probably are.

What do you think Hippy? Whats most important to you?

 
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
29 May 2013 23:50
 
Hippyhead - 22 May 2013 10:11 PM

....It’s unlikely even nukes would directly kill every person, but the social and environmental chaos that would likely result worldwide would erase most of what we think of as civilization.  Nobody would be in a position to rebuild what had been destroyed.

Unless we can construct a convincing argument that demonstrates that we will never use science in this way, not even once, ever, then the advancement of science is reasonably questioned….


...Also, I’m wondering if the evidence points to science being something that should be spread.  It seems fairly easy to make a counter case, and I’m wondering to what degree science is open to challenge here.

If these questions interest you, would welcome and appreciate any comments you may wish to dive in to…

HippyHead,

I don’t really like these stage names (i.e. hippyhead), whats your real name.  If you don’t want to tell me can I call you Angus?

 


So Angus,

Science is not a position statement, it is a not an organization, and it is not a cult.

ITS A METHOD!

There exists an objective reality independent of the observer and independent of a person’s opinion.  Science provides the best methods to uncover objective reality or perhaps more simply stated to find out what is true.

Although we all occasionally use the word “Science” to mean the body of information that the methods of science have uncovered, this use of the word can lead to misunderstandings that your posted questions have uncovered.

The reason why the word secular is often paired with the word Science is that those of us who live a secular lifestyle try to base our choices on what is true, what is real, not on fictional statements from supernatural beings.  Rational decisions can only be made if one has some approximation of how things really are and not on how one would like them to be.  Both the methods of science and secular decision making, use observation and empirical data to learn about the world (i.e. we do not pray for devine guidance).


So Angus, what methods do you use to make decisions?  When you question the “spread of science”, it appears that you are referring to the body of information that science has uncovered, so do you mean that you would like to suppress selected information?

Respectfully submitted
Jeff

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
30 May 2013 00:03
 

his style of posting and the direction of this thread suggests he is not interested in a discussion.  It appears he is looking for agreement with his position.

 
 
‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›