Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

A Brief History Of Bunk


SciWalker

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

Regarding occam's razor.....

 

Ghosts - Everyone knows what they are even if they aren't real. Why is that explanation complicated? Seems simple to me.

Low frequency hum - Ask the average Joe what low frequency hum is and you might get a shrug. I bet it gets more complicated as scientists explain how the low frequency hum affects the brain. I wonder if more people see ghosts near power lines?

 

I'm not challenging the finding of low frequency hum causing ghost appearances in the brain, just challenging what 'simple' means with Occam's Razor. "God did it" is much more simple than explaining the physics behind the Big Bang imho. God did it is probably incorrect but it is much more simpler than physics equations.

 

There is a misconception that Mystical = Complicated and Science = Simple. Not so.

 

 

Actually you got it backwards.

 

When simple and complex are used in this context that isn't talking about the number of words used in the explanation.  Let's take for example two explanations for Christmas.  One is "Santa did it".  The other is "Parents like to use the myth of Santa to reward their children, bring the family together for the holiday and inspire good behavior.  Which one of these explanations is simpler by the occam's razor criteria?

 

One of them generates questions like:

"But how can Santa visit millions of children in one night?"

"But how can Santa get into our house without a chimney?"

"But how can Santa's sled fly faster than a jet plane?"

"But how can Santa eat millions of cookies and drink millions of cups of milk in one night?"

 

 

Simple means the idea with the fewest unexplained problems.  Once you start introducing ad hoc explanations it just grows and grows until you have a myth or a religion.

 

 

Thank you for the apologetics and (re)defining of words. People here are just upset that I used Occam's Razor for something other than science. :-)

 

 

Are you trying to pull a Burnedout?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Midniterider,

 

See what I mean, just like arguing with Christian Calvinists. They cannot see anything beyond their own textbooks. Sad. I am glad business people don't stick to the textbooks or we would never innovate.

 

So when you argue with Christian Calvinists they ask to see the evidence that they are wrong and because you don't have any you are forced to run away and make excuses?  Good one, BO.  Very funny!

 

Nope...I just simply point out the circular reasoning and closed causation closed end arguments which is the same as Material Reductionists. The exact same thing.

 

 

Yeah, and you conquered the universe, cured cancer and changed reality with your magic powers.  

 

Very funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Midniterider,

 

See what I mean, just like arguing with Christian Calvinists. They cannot see anything beyond their own textbooks. Sad. I am glad business people don't stick to the textbooks or we would never innovate.

 

So when you argue with Christian Calvinists they ask to see the evidence that they are wrong and because you don't have any you are forced to run away and make excuses?  Good one, BO.  Very funny!

 

Nope...I just simply point out the circular reasoning and closed causation closed end arguments which is the same as Material Reductionists. The exact same thing.

 

 

Yeah, and you conquered the universe, cured cancer and changed reality with your magic powers.  

 

Very funny.

 

 

You know, BO may kinda have a point here.  I mean with materialism and the scientific method, you do have to begin with the assumption that everything is 'material'- you know, made of matter/energy and governed by physical processes.  And well whadd'ya know- all conclusions formed after that initial assumption just happen to find explanations in terms of matter/energy and physical processes.

 

It does seem kinda circular.  That might just be a trick of language- you have to watch out for those.  But I don't think BO is entirely wrong here.

 

I'm not saying I agree with him overall- but he does have a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Naw...he and I have more of an open mind than you do. 

 

 

BO, all you do is cheerleading.  

 

Zip, Boom, Rah, Rah, Rah!!!

 

I would look at any argument you offer up.  I don't remember ever seeing you offer up one.  I'm not closed minded if you won't even try.  But if you were to try and completely fail that wouldn't be closed mindedness on my part either.

 

"Zip, Boom, Rah, Rah, Rah!!!" - Burnedout

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You know, BO may kinda have a point here.  I mean with materialism and the scientific method, you do have to begin with the assumption that everything is 'material'- you know, made of matter/energy and governed by physical processes.  And well whadd'ya know- all conclusions formed after that initial assumption just happen to find explanations in terms of matter/energy and physical processes.

 

It does seem kinda circular.  That might just be a trick of language- you have to watch out for those.  But I don't think BO is entirely wrong here.

 

I'm not saying I agree with him overall- but he does have a point.

 

 

Actually the universe was created by me exactly five minutes ago.  Don't question it.  Take it on faith.  But don't worry these ad hoc explanations won't add complexity because it doesn't work that way.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All that frustration coming from you....tsk tsk tsk. 

 

 

I'm actually enjoying this thread very much.  Explaining science is fun and easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, BO may kinda have a point here.  I mean with materialism and the scientific method, you do have to begin with the assumption that everything is 'material'- you know, made of matter/energy and governed by physical processes.  And well whadd'ya know- all conclusions formed after that initial assumption just happen to find explanations in terms of matter/energy and physical processes.

 

It does seem kinda circular.  That might just be a trick of language- you have to watch out for those.  But I don't think BO is entirely wrong here.

 

I'm not saying I agree with him overall- but he does have a point.

 

     I don't think it is (a trick of language, that is).

 

     Imagine the well worn example of geocentric versus heliocentric.  What really changed?  The most significant change was the thing being orbited (not the idea that things could orbit but that things other than the earth could be orbited).  That led to all sorts of refinements but since the pope got involved and it became a huge issue this change became far more than what it should have been.  Things really were going that way instead of some idea that appeared literally over night like people tend to think.  The "nail in the coffin" was simply seeing things orbit another object other than Earth.  There's really no going back to the old system since this new system is so successful.

 

     So we have these philosophies that have existed for ages in various forms.  Then we have the philosophy of science.  It doesn't just appear over night but it kind of seems that way.  It's concerned with the natural world and things therein.  It actually does well doing what it sets out to do.  It's like a shift from geocentric to heliocentric.  For ages, up to and including the present time, the world has been investigated through a multitude of philosophies but none succeeded in explaining the natural world as well as the philosophy of science.  In such a short amount of time it has not only successfully explained the world but has allowed us a mastery of the world that is unmatched in history.  This is so taken for granted that science is often asked why it hasn't solved the problems of other philosophies yet.  The problems they've wrestled with since they were founded and still have no solution.  Is there really any going back to the old system when this system has proved itself so successful?  I don't think so.  There may yet be another evolution of this system beyond the horizon but I don't think going back will yield any acceptable answers just like going back to a geocentric system would.

 

          mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, with the ideas some people have about science, I am surprised those particular guys and girls didn't remain Christian - Christian beliefs require just as mistaken understandings in epistemology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     Anyone can ask questions not everyone can answer them.

 

          mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
What I am saying is we see things like the economy, geopolitical events, wars, etc., through our own training and thought processes.  No one mode of thinking can be used for all things, but at the same time, some people use a microscope, while others use a telescope in thinking.  Neither is bad, it is just which is appropriate for the given situation.  Each has it's own limitations.  That may be part of why we end up at each other's throats on here.  Not trying to be a smart-ass, just my little observations.  

 

 

I'll defer to ways of thinking that have demonstrated results. If anyone believes "magical thinking" has achieved any results, reached any consensus, improved conditions, or answered any questions as to how the universe works, be my guest. If anyone was raised to believe that one economic model or political philosophy is appropriate for all times and places, you're entitled to think that despite evidence to the contrary.

 

I'll just continue to look at everything and stick with what has worked best, not what I think should work or hope is right. I guess that's being closed minded or Calvinist in some quarters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to throw something out. I suspect that many, if not most of us are to a degree, victims of the thinking of our own professions, the way we are taught to think. Each of us approaches ideas, life, the way we interact with the world. If you are in a science related field, you are taught to approach elements of your field and your job with ever more exacting questions, if you are in accounting, everything has to be entered PERFECT and to be the protector of what is there. If you are in sales and marketing, you have to ask wide and open ended questions to begin with and are always looking at options and ways that will be what the customer is looking for, THEN narrow it down. You are always looking to expand a market or a new group of customers. If you are an entrepreneur, you are always looking for new wrinkles that will allow you to do things better in ANY direction so you are always asking things in your own head that will say...make something faster and with less waste so you can offer at least as good of quality product for less of a price to the customer, or...if you're in sales, you ask how can I make myself stand out better than my competition. This is JUST scratching the surface. When it comes to large macro fields, you HAVE to ask large ranging questions and define the group you are working with to understand the dynamics.

 

What I am saying is we see things like the economy, geopolitical events, wars, etc., through our own training and thought processes. No one mode of thinking can be used for all things, but at the same time, some people use a microscope, while others use a telescope in thinking. Neither is bad, it is just which is appropriate for the given situation. Each has it's own limitations. That may be part of why we end up at each other's throats on here. Not trying to be a smart-ass, just my little observations.

 

I think there's a lot of truth to that. You can't help but be heavily influenced by what you do and who you interact with 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Now I wouldn't describe sales/marketing the same way you would :HaHa: but I agree with your overall point.

 

When I was a mechanic, I interfaced daily with physical reality. If my diagnosis wasn't correct or if my repair/rebuild procedure wasn't done correctly the equipment in question would not run. And I had to keep at it 'til I got it right. That gave me quite a bit of practice at applying logic & inductive reasoning to reality. Many a time I'd run into a problem that was a massive pain in the ass to diagnose - it just didn't make sense. Now I would ALWAYS solve the problem eventually - sometimes via an epic battle of trial and error. And once the truth finally came out and the problem was made clear, I'd re-examine my troubleshooting process to see where I went wrong. Sometimes it was just a bone-headed fuckup with no plausible excuse... but usually I'd find that such errors follow directly from faulty assumptions. Assumptions are one of those necessary evils seeings how you NEVER have complete information regarding any problem. But you gotta look closely at those assumptions - they will kick your ass if you're not careful.

 

In that environment, one HAS to start with the assumption of materialism. Diesel engines, hydraulic systems, electronic control systems - these things don't become angry or posessed by spirits. If they're not working correctly, it's for a specific physical reason. Now maybe it's something complex and hard to figure out like voltage induced via a stray magnetic field or internal leakage in a hydraulic valve. But no matter how baffling the behavior - there is always a physical explanation. Praying or chanting will get you nowhere.

 

Of course lots of things including our brains are far more complex than an excavator or the like. But I've never seen any reason to doubt the assumption of materialism. Here's why I wonder if this "assumption" is a trick of language:

 

How would one prove that 'materialism' is a faulty assumption? Any convincing proof that could possibly be shown would have to be... material. So by definition, 'materialism' can't really be falsified. AND by definition, anything that isn't 'material' will not necessarily be bound by physical laws - and therefore can't be falsified. I haven't figured out how to state it concisely, but I'm pretty sure our language here doesn't quite mesh with reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some things that are not material but do have material consequences.  Take for example, the area of law.  If someone slanders you, lets say you are a teacher of grade school kids and some kids says you were touching them.  Even if you were or were not, that is slander and that can affect you ever getting job again.  That may not be material.  Take for example some  people who have been shamed, that may not be material but it can have a material consequence in say...that person is shamed so much they go commit suicide.  Just because it is not material it can have material consequences.

 

Laws are 100% material. They exist on paper, in peoples's minds, etc. There is no component of 'law' that exists.outside the physical/material realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Take for example, the area of law.

 

Society's laws actually exist. We invented them. Obviously there are consequences when it is applied to individuals. The brain, which demonstrably exists, affecting other parts of the body only makes sense; even a bad liver can turn your eyes and skin yellow.

 

Those are not at all related to the proposal of undetectable constructs.

 

My reference to magical thinking was meant to encompass all extraordinary claims, from ghosts, to psychic phenomena, to religious claims. In other words, ideas that sidestep rigorous inquiry and verifiable results yet claim to be on equal footing with the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is too funny.  Next BO will claim that ones and zeros stored on a computer have no physical existence.  If chemicals and electrical impulses in a brain have no physical existence then how far will the "open minded" go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some things that are not material but do have material consequences.  Take for example, the area of law.  If someone slanders you, lets say you are a teacher of grade school kids and some kids says you were touching them.  Even if you were or were not, that is slander and that can affect you ever getting job again.  That may not be material.  Take for example some  people who have been shamed, that may not be material but it can have a material consequence in say...that person is shamed so much they go commit suicide.  Just because it is not material it can have material consequences. 

 

So MRI's and brain scans are bunk?  For nothing that happens inside a brain is material?  Is this a scam that the Tech, Doctors and the companies that build these scanners all keep hush-hush?

 

Or maybe the human brain does have chemistry and electrical activity that is material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There are some things that are not material but do have material consequences. Take for example, the area of law. If someone slanders you, lets say you are a teacher of grade school kids and some kids says you were touching them. Even if you were or were not, that is slander and that can affect you ever getting job again. That may not be material. Take for example some people who have been shamed, that may not be material but it can have a material consequence in say...that person is shamed so much they go commit suicide. Just because it is not material it can have material consequences.

 

Laws are 100% material. They exist on paper, in peoples's minds, etc. There is no component of 'law' that exists.outside the physical/material realm.

What about intellectual content?

 

When you speak of science and material reduction, and are looking at a physical universe. You cannot touch a law, smell a law, taste a law, you cannot feel a law, it has no physical weight, it just affects you in your pocketbook or your ability to function as a free person.

Derp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is too funny.  Next BO will claim that ones and zeros stored on a computer have no physical existence.  If chemicals and electrical impulses in a brain have no physical existence then how far will the "open minded" go?

 

Cute....if you are talking about electrical impulses turning on and off the lights that make the zeros and ones.  Those exist, but it takes people to agree that '0' means nothing and '1' is something.  Those electrical impulses don't give meaning. 

 

 

So it's the electrical chemical reactions in human brains that give meaning?  So are electrical chemical reactions magic or material?  (hint: software is material.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Take for example, the area of law.

 

Society's laws actually exist. We invented them. Obviously there are consequences when it is applied to individuals. The brain, which demonstrably exists, affecting other parts of the body only makes sense; even a bad liver can turn your eyes and skin yellow.

 

Those are not at all related to the proposal of undetectable constructs.

 

My reference to magical thinking was meant to encompass all extraordinary claims, from ghosts, to psychic phenomena, to religious claims. In other words, ideas that sidestep rigorous inquiry and verifiable results yet claim to be on equal footing with the scientific method.

 

 

Laws are constructs but they are NOT physical.  They are ideas that have force to them because other people are willing to apply that force in the name of that law.  A right is what exists without laws, rules, or other people.  Material reduction is dealing matter/energy and affected by the physical universe.  Laws are 100% mental and administered by people. 

 

 

 

So ink and papper are magic rather than real?  Electric activity is magic instead of real?  Chemicals in the brain are magic instead of real?  

 

I'm glad you are hear to tell us what isn't real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok smart asses....HOW can you test words and ideas in a lab independent of being connected to a piece of physical matter or energy?  Words are given meaning by the people who use them as a group and agree on the meaning.  I thought material reductionism stated that it pretty much that something to be real had to be experienced with your 5 senses.  Ha HA!

 

 

How am I responsible for any of that?  Maybe you are railing against people who use to exist back when Isaac Newton what the hottest thing in science.  Today scientists are generally familiar with discoveries that we made in the 21st century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has got to be the dumbest criticism of materialism I've come across.  It isn't even up to creationist standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a hint there kids.....

 

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/booksanddigitalresources/booksmonographs/pil/pil52/ch3.pdf

 

You will note, you are now stretching your materialism.  The words are not the physical matter. 

 

 

So you are criticizing an idea that nobody holds?  Who are your opponents here?  If I'm your opponent in this debate then you should counter an idea that I actually believe.  If you want to counter an idea I don't believe then your opponent would be somebody who believes that other idea.  Can you identify them?

 

Ink on a page can be encoded by humans to match the meaning of an idea that is encoded in the electrical-chemicical activity of a human brain.  I don't see how any of those things are magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words are magic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The words themselves are not the physical matter.  That is the point of the link in my previous post, regardless of how it is derived, it is STILL not the physical object and you are wanting to material reduction will not apply to this fact, well...unless you say there are physical items, that is about  it.  You cannot derive meaning other than existence from the physical, meaning comes from the referent the words describe. 

 

 

Sure, they are not matter while they are energy inside a human brain or energy inside a computer.  However at the deepest level energy is matter and matter is energy.  Energy is part of the physical world.  The electrical activity in your brain that allowed you to compose that message would have been detected if you had been wearing the right equipment.  It wasn't magic.  Brain activity is physical.

 

Now as for this meaning . . . how am I responsible for meaning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Usually it is only the Christian apologists who redefine common terms and compare apples to unicorns. I'm just amazed this discussion is happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It takes an active will to make the chemical reactions take place to give the meaning in your mind.  Matter just is, it takes a person/s with the will to give it meaning. 

 

 

So it takes an active will (chemical reactions in the brain) to make the chemical reactions take place to give the meaning (chemical reactions in the brain) . . . 

 

Are you smoking dope right now?  How else can you be this profound?

 

Matter is just inert and only magic can animate it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.