Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding

[duderonomy]

On 3/4/2017 at 7:06 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

 

Ok Dude, the first paragraph first.

 

No, that's not the argument I'm making.  

A Christian would say that they will go with what they believe is true - but their beliefs are built on faith-in-the-absence-of-evidence.  They believe in Jesus' resurrection by faith, not by evidence.  When I say that I go with science, I do so on the basis of evidence.  I don't need to make a leap of faith to accept that science works and delivers the goods, better than religion.  It's simply a historical fact that it is so.  

 

Second paragraph:

Yes, we don't have any bedrock "Truth".  Period.  But I am not and have not been making the argument that science can give it to us.  When I say that we should go with science, I am not saying that it should be followed blindly, zealously and unquestioningly, like some kind of religion.  No.  Absolutely not.  Instead I am saying that of the available options open to us, we should make an informed choice and opt for the best one.  Below I will list why I think science is the best choice and why we should choose it over the others.  

 

Can you see how this is quite different from your position?  For you, because no method of understanding the truth of reality can give you the 100% certainty you want - ALL methods are suspect.  You level the playing field and treat all options the same.  So for you, science and religion are equal players and going with either one is just a matter of personal choice.  Yet, as I will show below, that is not a realistic understanding of the relationship between science and religion.  Even though neither can deliver 100% truth, they are not equal players.

 

Last paragraph:

Using the word faith in this context is difficult Dude.  I think we agree that it carries too much baggage.  Speaking only for myself, I prefer to use the word, 'confidence'.  I have confidence in science, but not faith in it.  I do not have faith, because there is no element of religious, spiritual or supernatural belief involved, anywhere along the line.  Mine is simply confidence (but not blind trust) in science.  

 

No, I do not appeal to consensus, which is an appeal to weight of numbers.  I appeal to weight of evidence.  (See below.)

No, I do not appeal to authority any more than any other member of Ex-C appeals to authority, when they cite scientific information in this forum.  Are you saying that anyone who does this is guilty of the fallacy of an appeal to authority?   And no, I do not commit the error of circular argumentation.  I do not say that science is true because it is true.  I say that science explains and describes aspects of reality better than other ways of doing so, like religion.  I say that science is our best shot at truth -  not that it is the truth.  

.

.

.

Ok, for the avoidance of future doubt and to clarify what I have been saying in this thread, here is the best explanation I can come up with of what my position is.

I appeal four things to make my case.  To the historical evidence, to the everyday evidence, to the evidence within Ex-C and to the evidence found within the remit of science itself.

 

# 1.

Historically, science has dethroned religion and has pushed it back on every front.  Science has done so on the basis of evidence, not belief.  Science has challenged the evidence-free beliefs of religion, found them wanting, tested them to destruction and refuted them.  Therefore, in choosing which method of understanding reality (science or religion) which one is the clear winner?

 

# 2.

In our everyday lives we put our lives in the hands of science, usually without even blinking or thinking about it.  Science delivers every type of goods and service for our global, technology-driven society and if we share and partake in these things (and we do!) then we can hardly claim to have little or no confidence in science.   The very fact that you are reading these words signifies that you have placed your confidence in what science can deliver.   Ditto if you travel by road, rail, air or sea.  Ditto if you use a bank or have a credit card.  Ditto if use a phone or watch tv.  In every hour of every day we all put our confidence in science.  Therefore, our daily lives are strong indicators of which choice we should make when it comes to understanding reality.  Should we go with religion or should we go with science?

 

# 3.

Here in Ex-C we have long used science to challenge and to demolish the irrational and superstitious claims of the religiously minded.  Why would we do that if we lacked confidence in science?  If we considered science and religion to be equal players, why is there such an asymmetrical imbalance in favor of science among the Ex-Christians in this forum?   Why do we have so little confidence in religion and so much confidence in science?   I contend that the reason why might be this.  Religion fails to offer testable explanations about reality and also fails to offer evidence for it's claims.  The religious are told to go with faith - not evidence.  Science however, delivers testable explanations and backs them up with evidence.   Therefore, science is not only radically different to religion -  it's also superior to it.  Another strong reason why we should choose science over religion.

 

# 4.

Science is a self-testing, self-correcting, self-improving way of understanding reality.  Ok, since it's performed by fallible humans, it will fall short of these standards.  People will make errors, people will cheat, personalities will clash, politics will get in the way, etc., etc.  I acknowledge science's shortcomings, problems and flaws.  Yet, for all of these things, science is still a clear winner over religion.  That's because religion has never been a self-testing, self-correcting and self-improving way of understanding reality.  Religion is set in stone and cannot evolve or adapt.  Therefore, this is another strong reason why we should choose science over religion.

 

Dude,  for these four reasons (and others) I go with science.

I hope that you can now see that my choice is an informed, rational and logical one.  That I am not treating science as some kind of 'faith' that must be believed.  That I do not appeal to consensus of opinion or to authority, but to the facts and to the evidence I've outlined in this post.  

 

I also hope that you can see that it's unrealistic to treat science and religion as equal players, when they clearly are not.  

Yes, they are equal when it comes to failing to deliver 100% truth with a capital T.   But, unless you can show otherwise, I contend that nothing can deliver 100% certainty.   So, if you had to choose between a range of options and science and religion were two of them, which would you go with?  And why?  (Serious questions, btw.)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

BAA, as usual with discussions like this, the thread of the conversation will get longer and  more involved as it goes on.

 

You respond to my first, second, and last paragraph, and then add your own points 1 through 4, and then a post-amble, for example.  I can find what I see as errors in your logic and your arguments, but if I followed them I would fall into responding to so many rabbit trails that aren't relevant, IMHO. 

 

I understand why and how this happens, but in the interest of staying with the OP, is it possible that all three of the points of view you presented in your graphic only show a portion of reality? Do we know that there isn't a fourth point of view that would change our understanding of the three you presented? Is it possible that the first point of view might change if it sees what it sees from a slightly different perspective?

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

9 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA, as usual with discussions like this, the thread of the conversation will get longer and  more involved as it goes on.

 

You respond to my first, second, and last paragraph, and then add your own points 1 through 4, and then a post-amble, for example.  I can find what I see as errors in your logic and your arguments, but if I followed them I would fall into responding to so many rabbit trails that aren't relevant, IMHO. 

 

I understand why and how this happens, but in the interest of staying with the OP, is it possible that all three of the points of view you presented in your graphic only show a portion of reality? Do we know that there isn't a fourth point of view that would change our understanding of the three you presented? Is it possible that the first point of view might change if it sees what it sees from a slightly different perspective?

 

 

 

 

Dude,

 

There's no need to worry about any rabbit trails resulting from my latest post.

I was simply trying to give you the best explanation of what my position is.  I did so because you seemed to suggesting that I was treating science as some kind of religion.  Hopefully you now realize from my lengthy explanation that I'm not doing that.  Assuming that is so (but please tell me if you still think I'm being religious about science) we can move on.

 

In this message I will answer your questions about the OP.

Then, I will post another message, asking you some questions.  In the spirit of mutual cooperation and reciprocation, I respectfully request that you apply yourself to them and answer them to the best of ability - just as I am answering your questions here and just as I have done with yesterday's explanation.

 

The Dude wrote...

I understand why and how this happens, but in the interest of staying with the OP, is it possible that all three of the points of view you presented in your graphic only show a portion of reality? Do we know that there isn't a fourth point of view that would change our understanding of the three you presented? Is it possible that the first point of view might change if it sees what it sees from a slightly different perspective?

 

Yes.  All three points of view only show a portion of reality.

That understanding is vital and pivotal to the function of the diagram.  Please note that my line in this thread has been consistent about this.  I have maintained that the central Truth cannot be fully seen from any viewpoint.  I have also maintained that each viewpoint, while being incomplete, is still True.  Not the whole Truth, but nevertheless, a True part of the whole.  I have also maintained that the incompleteness of any one viewpoint doesn't invalidate it.  Each viewpoint, being a True aspect of the whole (but hidden) Truth has value and shouldn't be ignored, sidelined, downplayed or declared false because it isn't 100% certain.  We know from history and from our own lives that science delivers true knowledge about reality. Even though this true knowledge is incomplete and less than 100% certain, it still has value because it works.  If it didn't work, then it would be true.  A viewpoint only becomes invalid and is discarded if it is superseded by a better one or is shown to be unworkable. 

 

Yes.  The diagram uses three different points of view, but there are many more than just three.

In the OP (last paragraph) I described how astronomy has been able to use more and different ways of studying the skies.  

 

Yes.  The diagram is dynamic and flexible, allowing for human understanding to grow and evolve.

Therefore, it's not just possible that a fourth viewpoint will change the other three - it's expected and welcomed.  This would be a clear sign that the diagram is working properly and that human understanding of reality is improving.

 

Yes.  To reiterate the point, change is what the diagram is all about.

Change is not an enemy, something to be avoided or a flaw in the diagram.  By discarding viewpoints that are shown to be wrong (like geocentricity, cold fusion or phlogiston theory) and adopting new and better ones, we improve our understanding of reality.   The only unchanging  part of the diagram is the central Truth of reality.  Since we can never know what it is and since our ideas of what it is are evolving and improving, change is what we humans are obliged to do and to live with.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Dude,

 

Please answer these questions.

 

#1

When a member of Ex-C cites science data they didn't observe, test and check themselves, is that committing any kind of formal or informal fallacy?

 

#2

Do you accept that humans can never know the central Truth of reality with 100% certainty?

 

#3

If you had to choose between a range of options for understanding reality (like religion and science) which one would you opt for?

 

#4

Re: the above... why?  (Please justify your choice with a reason or reasons.)

 

5#

Referring to my second point of appeal, from yesterday...

 

In our everyday lives we put our lives in the hands of science, usually without even blinking or thinking about it.  Science delivers every type of goods and service for our global, technology-driven society and if we share and partake in these things (and we do!) then we can hardly claim to have little or no confidence in science.   The very fact that you are reading these words signifies that you have placed your confidence in what science can deliver.   Ditto if you travel by road, rail, air or sea.  Ditto if you use a bank or have a credit card.  Ditto if you use a phone or watch tv.  In every hour of every day we all put our confidence in science.  Therefore, our daily lives are strong indicators of which choice we should make when it comes to understanding reality. 

 

...please explain.

You put your confidence in less-than-100%-certain science on a daily basis.  Yet in this thread, you say that because science can't deliver 100% certainty, we shouldn't place our trust in it.   The way you live with uncertain science appears to contradict your desire in this thread for total certainty, before you will trust science.  You trust the uncertain science of electronics to post here, don't you?

 

Please explain.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

23 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

No and No, Josh.  (In my opinion, that is.)

Unless evolution significantly changes the nature of the human condition (or is assisted to do so by technology) I really can't see a time where we'll acquire the ultimate knowledge of reality itself.  And ditto for ultimate knowledge re the origin of everything.  But the trap I reckon we need to avoid falling into is to say that anything less than 100% certainty is untrustworthy.   That kind of either/or argument just doesn't wash and isn't borne out by how we live our lives.  Since I'm a big fan of worked examples, here's one to illustrate what I mean.

 

The deepest mine in the world goes down just shy of 2.5 miles.

Therefore, we can say nothing with 100% certainty about what is happening 20 miles under our feet.  (I've erred on the side of caution, because you could be reading this post on an aircraft in the stratosphere.)  Everything we know about the interior of the Earth...   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth  ...is based on inference and deduction, not direct observation and measurement.  By definition, all inference and deduction is less than 100% certain.   Yet, we are still able to know a great deal about the insides of this planet.  

 

If we took the line that anything less than 100% certainty is untrustworthy, then how could we possibly extract oil, gas, coal, iron ore, bauxite or any other mineral?

Mining industries would be paralyzed because they couldn't say with absolute certainty where to dig.  Ditto for the oil and gas industries, when it comes to saying where to drill.  How could the USGS possibly advise on when a volcano is likely to blow and how far away from the mountain the danger zone should be?   Where should whole communities be evacuated to?  If only total certainty is acceptable, then there is no safe place anywhere on the surface of the earth.   That would mean that rating the San Andreas fault zone as being just as safe as anywhere else.   That the earthquake risk is the same, everywhere.   Huh!!?

 

It just doesn't work and we don't live this way, do we Josh?   

 

What intrigues (and worries) me tho' is why some people hold to this 100%-certainty-or-nothing mode of thinking.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

There's a few more things to consider. I'm not sure how untrustworthy the Dude thinks science is, at least in terms of the extent of what we can trust and what we shouldn't. We've established that at least in terms of the ultimate questions, we just don't know - not science and not religion. 

 

Having acknowledged this fact, now what? 

 

Not having answers to the ultimate questions doesn't hinder the ability of science to know how things work. We may not know why existence is even taking place to begin with, but we know a great deal about how existence works here on earth and abroad. So I always suggest that people stop resisting science over religion. Religion does a terrible job of showing how things work. That's because it's based on ancient mythology and times when people had no idea how things really work. It's static. Science is not static. It's always growing and evolving. So given a choice between religion and science as a method for discovering reality, science is the obvious choice.

 

And since religion involves eastern mystical views, I can say that religion can offer some things in terms of discovering reality. You can meditate, get in tune with your own consciousness. That's another way of discovering reality. And you can get in tune with the mystery of your own life and existence, another way to experience reality. You're not getting the how things work angle from religion. You're getting the putting yourself in touch with and identifying yourself with the great unknown aspect of understanding reality. And indeed, for a full range scope of the very best you can do as a human being to try and discover reality, it involves using science according to it's proper usage and using religion according to it's proper usage. If you're not, then you're not engaged in a full range human experience of reality. The mystery is a big part of it. 

 

That's the next level. Can science offer the same experience of mystery and putting yourself in accord with the great known that religion is supposed to be doing? 

 

Can science, after all, suffice as a complete replacement for religion by covering both the known and knowable and also calling attention to the unknown and unknowable? I have thoughts on this. What are yours? 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

27 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There's a few more things to consider. I'm not sure how untrustworthy the Dude thinks science is, at least in terms of the extent of what we can trust and what we shouldn't. We've established that at least in terms of the ultimate questions, we just don't know - not science and not religion. 

 

Josh, it remains for the Dude to commit himself on the, 'we just don't know' issue.  All we know at the moment is that Dude considers some or all of science to be untrustworthy and as yet we don't know why that is.  Hopefully he will answer the questions I put to him today and then we will know where he stands.

 

27 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Having acknowledged this fact, now what? 

 

We're still waiting on the Dude.  So maintaining a holding pattern seems to be what we do now.

 

27 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Not having answers to the ultimate questions doesn't hinder the ability of science to know how things work. We may not know why existence is even taking place to begin with, but we know a great deal about how existence works here on earth and abroad. So I always suggest that people stop resisting science over religion. Religion does a terrible job of showing how things work. That's because it's based on ancient mythology and times when people had no idea how things really work. It's static. Science is not static. It's always growing and evolving. So given a choice between religion and science as a method for discovering reality, science is the obvious choice.

 

Agree.  I don't need a map of the universe to get from the Bronx to the Battery.  I only need a map of NY.  So the argument that only 100% of something is useful and valuable really is false.

 

27 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

And since religion involves eastern mystical views, I can say that religion can offer some things in terms of discovering reality. You can meditate, get in tune with your own consciousness. That's another way of discovering reality. And you can get in tune with the mystery of your own life and existence, another way to experience reality. You're not getting the how things work angle from religion. You're getting the putting yourself in touch with and identifying yourself with the great unknown aspect of understanding reality. And indeed, for a full range scope of the very best you can do as a human being to try and discover reality, it involves using science according to it's proper usage and using religion according to it's proper usage. If you're not, then you're not engaged in a full range human experience of reality. The mystery is a big part of it. 

 

That's the next level. Can science offer the same experience of mystery and putting yourself in accord with the great known that religion is supposed to be doing? 

 

I'm sorry Josh, but I really don't know the answer to that.

 

27 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Can science, after all, suffice as a complete replacement for religion by covering both the known and knowable and also calling attention to the unknown and unknowable? I have thoughts on this. What are yours? 

 

 

 

No.  Not if people keep asking for 100% certainty.  Science can never give them that.  So it probably can never be a replacement for religion.

 

But since people live every day with uncertainty and use less-than-100% certain science all the time, why are they living by two different standards?

 

Why do they ask for 100% certainty and doubt science when it fails to deliver - yet happily use all the benefits and gizmos that science makes possible?

 

[Joshpantera]

As I learned the discourse on science and religion, and about how religion is simply supposed to put someone in touch with an 'experience' of deep mystery, I realized right away that science can also do that, perhaps even better than religion. But that notion was met with much disdain from both the science and religion camps. The mystical crowd generally won't concede to science. But nevertheless, if religion is supposed to draw you into a focus on the infinite and eternal, which brings you to an experience of deep mystery, is there any good reason why you couldn't get the same exact experience from a focus on the infinite and eternal through science? Logically, I think you can. The infinite and eternal is a naturalist issue, not just a supernaturalist issue. My own experience of mystery and awe is viewed through the lens of science and the natural universe. I don't need any supernatural religion for a spiritual outlook. I get that through the means of science and the experience of my own conscious existence.

 

So as to the question of whether we ought to treat science as a replacement for religion, that's a question with some depth. It's possible to do it.  

[bornagainathiest]

2 hours ago, ExPCA said:

 

This is similar to what I've mentioned in my topic "christianity vs. science" that has this video in it with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens.

 

In my opinion, you are describing here the fact that all religions have a totalitarian aspect to them which renders them the truth at any time. This not only discourages open discourse, but claims a solution to every known argument by reasoning with scriptural contexts, philosophical concepts, or scriptural commentaries.

 

Another point they bring up in the video is about this intangible Truth. Or, "well it's the Bible and God, we cannot understand it fully so it is true and you don't believe because you inherently sinful in Adam or of yourself or of demonic reasons." In other words, "you do not have truth because it cannot be attained, but we're here to tip toe around god's coat tails with you and tell you how to live your life to please god."

 

-----

 

Christians will argue that their exegesis of the bible reveals all that god wanted to reveal perfectly and at the perfect time in history. God came at the perfect time in jesus christ and we are to try to live like him by the efforts of ourselves and the help of god's grace to be like jesus to please god and make it to heaven to be with god.

 

Like you say, we can't understand this so christians label it as a holy mystery of faith and philosophers label it as 'god in the gaps of science or reason.'

 

 

Agree, ExPCA.  What you've outlined here is exactly what theists of many stripes tend to do.

 

When something in their holy text appears to be at odds with the historical evidence, at odds with another passage of scripture or is just plain illogical, they trot out the... "God's ways are not our ways" ...defense and appeal to the mysterious and the unknowable to get them out of an awkward corner. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[Joshpantera]

That's why it's important to corner the theists on their usage of mystery and the unknowable. They're used to thinking that reverting to the mysterious will get them out of a jam, but it can get them into a jam just as easily. 

[duderonomy]

On 3/6/2017 at 7:20 AM, bornagainathiest said:

Dude,

 

Please answer these questions.

 

#1

When a member of Ex-C cites science data they didn't observe, test and check themselves, is that committing any kind of formal or informal fallacy?

 

#2

Do you accept that humans can never know the central Truth of reality with 100% certainty?

 

#3

If you had to choose between a range of options for understanding reality (like religion and science) which one would you opt for?

 

#4

Re: the above... why?  (Please justify your choice with a reason or reasons.)

 

5#

Referring to my second point of appeal, from yesterday...

 

In our everyday lives we put our lives in the hands of science, usually without even blinking or thinking about it.  Science delivers every type of goods and service for our global, technology-driven society and if we share and partake in these things (and we do!) then we can hardly claim to have little or no confidence in science.   The very fact that you are reading these words signifies that you have placed your confidence in what science can deliver.   Ditto if you travel by road, rail, air or sea.  Ditto if you use a bank or have a credit card.  Ditto if you use a phone or watch tv.  In every hour of every day we all put our confidence in science.  Therefore, our daily lives are strong indicators of which choice we should make when it comes to understanding reality. 

 

...please explain.

You put your confidence in less-than-100%-certain science on a daily basis.  Yet in this thread, you say that because science can't deliver 100% certainty, we shouldn't place our trust in it.   The way you live with uncertain science appears to contradict your desire in this thread for total certainty, before you will trust science.  You trust the uncertain science of electronics to post here, don't you?

 

Please explain.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

BAA,

 

I've had a suspicion that this question leads back to the climate change/Fort Pickens stuff from the other sub-forum, and that that is at least part of the reason for this thread.  Am I correct?

 

The answer to your first question is that I don't know at this time, not being an expert in arguments concerning logical fallacies.  There may be a fallacy committed by doing what you described.

Do you observe, test, and check for yourself all of the science data you cite? If not, you may committing a formal or informal fallacy yourself. You tell me.

 

As for question two, I accept that humans at this time don't (unless it's inadvertently) know the central Truth of reality with 100% certainty. That's assuming of course that there is a central Truth of reality.

I can't say that humans will never know, only that they don't know now.

 

3)  Not to be flippant, but what is the full range of options? You've only presented two. Of the two you offered I would choose science, but are there others? Again, you tell me.

Also, do we know that religion (generic) and science can't both be used to understand reality?

Is it possible that humans haven't yet found the religion that explains everything, and is it also possible that science may someday offer answers that show that what we now believe to be true is in fact not true?

 

4) I've said enough in #3, plus what is this, a classroom? You should justify your stuff before you expect me to justify mine.  By asking such a thing, aren't you setting yourself up as an authority and then appealing to authority? I'm serious.

 

5)  Suffice it for me to say here that your understanding of my position is flawed, and I do wish you wouldn't tell others (in this thread) that I don't seem to trust or rely in science when you know I've said just the opposite over the years many times. 

My main point is that science may not be the be-all end-all of knowledge, and even if one could show that it is I would point out that while the scientific method may not change, new scientific discoveries may and often have turned older scientific discoveries to dust.  

You also have the idea that I have to have 100% certainty in anything before I put my trust in it. Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we can't have absolute certainty in anything and no offence my internet friend, but your arguments are growing quickly as one of the things I can't be certain of, and that's sad.

 

ETA: Correction for typos, and I'm sure I missed a few.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Dude.

 

Are you correct about the climate change/Fort Pickens connection?  

Certainly what's being discussed here is connected to that thread in TofT, but only in as much as I declared in my OP.  

 

I found this today and immediately thought of our conversion about science having a very limited perspective of reality, Dude.

Imho, we can look at this image and draw different conclusions about our ability to understand reality thru science.

 

I wrote this directly under the square/circle/triangle diagram, referring to your, 'very limited perspective of reality' statement in that TofT thread.

That's the connection, Dude.  Nothing specifically about climate change or Fort Pickens.  I was hoping to find out from you what you meant by your statement and used the diagram to illustrate three very limited perspectives (square, circle and triangle) of a more complex, central reality.  As you know, I don't do politics, so because the subject of climate change can get political very quickly, I try to confine myself only to the science involved.  So there's no danger that I'll ever be raising that topic with you or any other member. 

 

#1.

Well as far as I'm aware, nobody is committing any fallacies if they post science data they didn't gather, check and test themselves.  But I felt I had to ask, so as to sound you out on this.  From a purely practical p.o.v., if that was the case, then we'd have a very bizarre state of affairs indeed.  In Ex-C only three members out of the several thousands (Bhim, the Redneck Prof and the Rogue Scholar) could post science data without falling into the fallacy trap.  Everyone else would be excluded, by virtue of not being scientists.  But thank you for answering.

 

#2.

I read you loud and clear.  Thanks.

 

#3.

I don't know the full range of options either, Dude.  I simply stayed with the two that crop up the most in the Science vs. Religion sub-forum, for the sake of ease.  Good questions, btw.  They deserve investigating.  If not here and now, then perhaps elsewhere and sometime else.  Thanks.

 

#4

With all due respect, my polite request for you to justify your choice wasn't meant to antagonize or belittle you, Dude.

I'm sorry if it seemed that way.  In my defense I have to say that asking someone to justify their position is pretty much the norm in internet debates.  We ask other members to do that all the time, here in Ex-C.  It's really not an unusual thing to ask for.

 

With regard to justifying myself, I believe that I've done so quite adequately in this thread, explaining at length and in considerable detail my position on the issue.

I'd also like to point out that I've readily agreed and acceded to your requests, whenever you've made them and responded to them as soon as I could.  You asked me to stop giving overlong, overly-verbose examples and to just spit it out - and I did so.  You've plied me with many questions about the function of the diagram - and I've answered them all.  You've expressed the worry that the length of our replies might get overlong - and I've done my best to be concise and brief in my responses, wherever possible.  At all points and in many ways I've put in the effort and the time to do the right thing by you in this thread.

 

Now, I thank you for your latest replies, but I'm still not much closer to understanding why you think as you do re: the trustworthiness of science.

I'm not trying to teach or set myself up as any kind of authority... I simply want to understand.  And to do that I must ask questions of you.  One of those questions being how you would justify your choice of which method to understand reality with.   In this thread you've wanted to understand about the diagram and about other things and so you've asked questions of me.  That's fine.  That's just how it should be.  We ask each other questions and there's a two-way flow of information between us.

 

So, may I please put question #4 to you again?  Could you please justify your choice of which method you'd use to understand reality with a reason or reasons?  I ask, not to goad you, sass you up, follow a hidden agenda or to criticize you in any way.  I simply would like to understand.  There's no animosity here - just curiosity.  Thanks.

 

#5

I'm sorry that my understanding of your position is flawed, Dude.

If I've misrepresented you, then I apologize.  However, my failure is your opportunity.  As I see it, now that you know that I don't properly understand you, this is your chance to set that situation right and to explain your thinking to me.  Perhaps you could explain how you understand what happens in science when a new discovery overturns a governing paradigm?  And where you stand when it comes to trusting this theory or that one?  By now you must have a reasonable Idea of where I stand and what I think on these points.  Would you like to bring me up to speed on your understanding of them, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[LogicalFallacy]

55 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

18 hours ago, duderonomy said:

On ‎07‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 1:20 AM, bornagainathiest said:

Dude,

 

Please answer these questions.

 

#1

When a member of Ex-C cites science data they didn't observe, test and check themselves, is that committing any kind of formal or informal fallacy?

 

Please explain.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

BAA,

 

The answer to your first question is that I don't know at this time, not being an expert in arguments concerning logical fallacies.  There may be a fallacy committed by doing what you described.

Do you observe, test, and check for yourself all of the science data you cite? If not, you may committing a formal or informal fallacy yourself. You tell me

 

#1.

Well as far as I'm aware, nobody is committing any fallacies if they post science data they didn't gather, check and test themselves.  But I felt I had to ask, so as to sound you out on this.  From a purely practical p.o.v., if that was the case, then we'd have a very bizarre state of affairs indeed.  In Ex-C only three members out of the several thousands (Bhim, the Redneck Prof and the Rogue Scholar) could post science data without falling into the fallacy trap.  Everyone else would be excluded, by virtue of not being scientists.  But thank you for answering.

 

 

If I may weigh in on this singular question, I would say there is the potential for people to commit to the fallacy of argument from authority/ appeal to authority - i.e. something is correct because X says its correct.

 

However, as its states below, just because you do use an authority does not mean that you are committing a fallacy.

appeal to authority https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

 

Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true' Bob says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn't a primate).

 

Something happened in the ToT thread regarding Llwellyn's 'rape chromosome'. Llwellyn posted articles from 'authority' and argued in favour of a rape chromosome. TRP came in and corrected Llewellyn, and I quoted TRP as an authority as part of my argument. Essentially trusting his scientific knowledge. Did either of us commit an appeal to authority? Probably not - Llwellyn just didn't understand what the articles were actually saying, and TRP being a professor in the genetics field was well qualified to make the corrections.

 

 

[duderonomy]

 BAA:  "So, may I please put question #4 to you again?  Could you please justify your choice of which method you'd use to understand reality with a reason or reasons?  I ask, not to goad you, sass you up, follow a hidden agenda or to criticize you in any way.  I simply would like to understand.  There's no animosity here - just curiosity.  Thanks."

 

Well first, BAA, what is reality and how do we know? You started this with a three point view of an assumed reality where each point of view sees a different part of the supposed whole, much like the example of several blind men describing an elephant by touch and each providing a different description of the animal.

 

The difference is in the blind man example we know that they are each in their own way describing parts of an elephant, but in your example, no one can say for certain what is being described, because science is limited and isn't in the business of describing reality.

 

I posit that any method used to "understand reality" would be committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

[bornagainathiest]

Hmmm... there seems to be a pattern forming here, Dude.

 

I ask you to be forthcoming about your thinking and how you choose which method you'd use to understand reality.

I point out that in this thread I've answered all of your questions to the best of my ability and as quickly as I've been able.

I ask for us to proceed in a spirit of mutual respect and mutual cooperation, with a two-way flow of information, to increase understanding between us.

I also point out that what's being asked is not unreasonable and not unusual, either in Ex-C or in most other internet forums.

 

But when it comes to you actually revealing how you think and how you make your choices...

You ask more questions of me, (what is reality?) point out the shortcomings of the diagram and not how it can be helpful, point out the shortcomings of science and not how it can be useful and then you posit that any method of understanding reality is logically fallacious.  Which means that you are positing that all methods of understanding reality are doomed to fail.  These examples either focus only on failure or on what cannot be done.   They take no account of what can be done and what is possible.   Since this generation understands reality better than previous ones (Do you dispute this claim?) then all methods of understanding reality used by previous generations cannot have been logically fallacious.  Some must have been successful.  (Do you wish to dispute this too?)

 

I'm sorry Dude but I don't see this as openness and a two-way flow of information between us.

I'm beginning to see this is defensiveness and needless negativity (only shortcomings, not benefits).  Today I am no closer to understanding your thinking and how you make your choices than I was yesterday.  Instead of understanding you more and better, I've had to balance your negative statements about what cannot be done with positive ones about what can and what has been done.  I've also had to look at what you posited and deal with that.  So, having done these things, do I understand you, your thinking and your choice-making any better today?  Sorry, but my honest answer is No.

 

Now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it's quite possible that I'm misreading the signs.  

But, if you don't want me to understand your thinking and don't want me to understand how you make your choices, then please just say so now.   Earlier in this thread, when you asked me to spit it out, I did so.  So, could I ask you to do the same please?   Are we going to get somewhere and are you going to tell me how you think and choose?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

I'm not sure what the Dude means either. He hasn't presented a specific philosophical argument to back this up. 

 

I think he means this only in the absolute sense of understanding reality. If we don't know the thing itself (Kantian philosophy), then our perceptions of reality are always different than what true reality actually is behind our perceptions of it. It's not that nothing really exists, there's something there. And we're aware and experiencing that something that is there. It's just that we're unable to experience that something 'directly' through our senses. So our entire elaborate models of the universe and speculations of the beyond fall in behind this underlying problem of not knowing 'the thing in itself'. But obviously, we find consistencies among humans about our skewed view of reality, so to speak. We all experience scientific truths that hold up as true according to human perception of reality, even though we don't perceive these truths in a direct fashion.

 

But rejecting science doesn't seem warranted based on Kantian Idealistic views or views that are similar. It just calls attention to the fact that ultimately we don't know. We do know things like natural laws are something real, that they do exist and can be understood in terms of how they do work. We just don't know what they actually are beneath our perceptions. And because of that ultimate reality remains illusive.

 

So perhaps the Dudes point about science trying to deal with ultimate reality will always be logically fallacious, can make a good point if you focus in on the specific philosophical arguments. 

[bornagainathiest]

Well, if that is the Dude's angle Josh, then I've been wasting a lot of my time here.

At no point have I said, suggested or implied that science can deal with ultimate reality.  I've been at pains to make it abundantly clear that the ultimate reality will always remain less than 100% known to us.  What I have said is that science allows us to know something of reality - not all of it.  

 

So Yes, I agree.  

It would be logically fallacious to claim that science deals with ultimate reality.  But since I haven't said this, that particular logical fallacy doesn't apply to me.  Nor to anything I've written about it, in this thread.  If the Dude still thinks that's what I'm saying, then I've totally failed to communicate what I actually mean to him.  

[duderonomy]

 

BAA: "So, may I please put question #4 to you again?  Could you please justify your choice of which method you'd use to understand reality with a reason or reasons?" 

 

BAA: "I ask you to be forthcoming about your thinking and how you choose which method you'd use to understand reality."

 

And then, BAA: "At no point have I said, suggested or implied that science can deal with ultimate reality."

 

So there's a "reality", and then there's an "ultimate reality"?  Like there's a Scotsman, and then there's a True Scotsman?

 

 

BAA, You pointed out that you think I was being negative and seemed to imply that my asking questions of you instead of answering your questions was somehow improper, but if you ask a question wherein you assume the answer and I don't agree with that answer, what else can I do?

 

What you see as negativity on my part, I see as critical thinking on my part. Have you considered that?

 

[bornagainathiest]

3 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA: "So, may I please put question #4 to you again?  Could you please justify your choice of which method you'd use to understand reality with a reason or reasons?" 

 

BAA: "I ask you to be forthcoming about your thinking and how you choose which method you'd use to understand reality."

 

And then, BAA: "At no point have I said, suggested or implied that science can deal with ultimate reality."

 

So there's a "reality", and then there's an "ultimate reality"?  Like there's a Scotsman, and then there's a True Scotsman?

 

Hmmm... now the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

 

3 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

BAA, You pointed out that you think I was being negative and seemed to imply that my asking questions of you instead of answering your questions was somehow improper, but if you ask a question wherein you assume the answer and I don't agree with that answer, what else can I do?

 

What you see as negativity on my part, I see as critical thinking on my part. Have you considered that?

 

 

Ok Dude,

 

I'm in no hurry here.  We can run through as many logical fallacies as you want and go through as much critical thinking as it takes.  It's all good.

 

I'll happily drop the word ultimate from the dialog between you and me, because it was Josh who introduced it.  There!  It's gone.

[Joshpantera]

So there's a "reality", and then there's an "ultimate reality"?  Like there's a Scotsman, and then there's a True Scotsman?

 

I laughed my living ass off when I read this this morning!!!!

 

And I guess I'm the one who has to own up to it. The answer is no, there is only ultimate reality taking place all the time. We perceive it as reality. But our reality perception is skewed. We live an existence of not seeing, hearing, touching, tasting or smelling ultimate reality in a direct and absolutely known way. But I assume that's also your point Dude. I'm not sure though. Does that sound like what you're trying to express? 

[duderonomy]

On 3/11/2017 at 2:59 AM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Hmmm... now the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

 

 

Ok Dude,

 

I'm in no hurry here.  We can run through as many logical fallacies as you want and go through as much critical thinking as it takes.  It's all good.

 

I'll happily drop the word ultimate from the dialog between you and me, because it was Josh who introduced it.  There!  It's gone.

 

 

Yes indeed BAA ,my internet friend, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Is there a difference between "reality" and "ultimate reality"?  I'm really interested in your perspective on this. It seems that you want to sweep this under the proverbial rug.

I'm not sure if I should let you off the hook because you want to throw the ball to Josh for 'using it first', because no matter who used the term first, you used it in your argument thus you own it, so difference yes or no? 

 

As for "as much critical thinking as it takes", you have admitted that your science can't even show that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. So are you using critical thinking, or are you interpreting data based on what you want to be true, or what is 'probably' true?

You weren't being flippant about critical thinking were you? As much as it takes, you said, and that's fine but we both have to employ it right?

 

[duderonomy]

On 3/11/2017 at 8:39 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

 

 

I laughed my living ass off when I read this this morning!!!!

 

And I guess I'm the one who has to own up to it. The answer is no, there is only ultimate reality taking place all the time. We perceive it as reality. But our reality perception is skewed. We live an existence of not seeing, hearing, touching, tasting or smelling ultimate reality in a direct and absolutely known way. But I assume that's also your point Dude. I'm not sure though. Does that sound like what you're trying to express? 

 

Josh, you magnificent bastard, how do you know that our perception is skewed?  Do you have scientific or religious information of some kind? If you do, we'd all like to see proof.

 

Oh, and I'm so glad that you came back/are here at Ex-C, and I'm not kidding.   

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

As for "as much critical thinking as it takes", you have admitted that your science can't even show that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. So are you using critical thinking, or are you interpreting data based on what you want to be true, or what is 'probably' true?

You weren't being flippant about critical thinking were you? As much as it takes, you said, and that's fine but we both have to employ it right?

 

No Dude, I didn't admit that science can't even show that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

 

Here's what I wrote, in answer to you on this issue, in post # 32.

 

"It's agreed between us that science can't show with 100% confidence that the Earth isn't standing still at the center of the universe."

 

Now, please tell me exactly what I admitted to in the above sentence.

I hope that you will clearly and unequivocally say what the difference is between what you said I admitted to and what I actually admitted to.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Yes indeed BAA ,my internet friend, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Is there a difference between "reality" and "ultimate reality"?  I'm really interested in your perspective on this. It seems that you want to sweep this under the proverbial rug.

I'm not sure if I should let you off the hook because you want to throw the ball to Josh for 'using it first', because no matter who used the term first, you used it in your argument thus you own it, so difference yes or no? 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You first raised this "reality vs "ultimate reality" issue in post # 70, Dude.

I've just read thru all of my posts up to that point and can't seem to see where I've typed out the words, "ultimate reality".  The closest I can find is in post # 51...

 

Posted March 5 · Report post

On 3/5/2017 at 5:51 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

Once again, great post. I enjoy posts that make me think. You make a good point and it helps me understand better where this is going. I was confused there for a while. 

 

I agree with the above. The pattern seems the simplest explanation. With time and knowledge more knowledge is gained. But is it conceivable to gain knowledge to the point of acquiring ultimate knowledge, or is it infinitely out of reach due to the possible infinite and eternal range of existences?

 

This applies to ultimate origins as well. It seems more likely that we could forever gain in incomplete knowledge with ultimate knowledge eluding us like an endless carrot on a stick for ever and ever.

 

And this is to question ultimate knowledge, not just knowledge in general. 

 

 

No and No, Josh.  (In my opinion, that is.)

Unless evolution significantly changes the nature of the human condition (or is assisted to do so by technology) I really can't see a time where we'll acquire the ultimate knowledge of reality itself.  And ditto for ultimate knowledge re the origin of everything.  But the trap I reckon we need to avoid falling into is to say that anything less than 100% certainty is untrustworthy.   That kind of either/or argument just doesn't wash and isn't borne out by how we live our lives.  Since I'm a big fan of worked examples, here's one to illustrate what I mean.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, as far as I can see, I've written about acquiring the ultimate knowledge of reality and the ultimate knowledge of the origin of everything.

Both of those highlighted items are clearly different from "ultimate reality".  The difference being that I've written about knowledge of reality, not reality itself - ultimate or otherwise.  I'm sorry, but I can't see that I've made the distinction you seem to think I have, drawing a difference between 'reality' and 'ultimate reality'.  If that so, and I haven't done what you're saying  Dude, then I have no case to answer.   I did not commit the True Scotsman fallacy.  I therefore do not have to own it, because that distinction played no part in my argument.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Just noticed this, Dude.

 

Posted Friday at 01:39 PM · Report post

Well, if that is the Dude's angle Josh, then I've been wasting a lot of my time here.

At no point have I said, suggested or implied that science can deal with ultimate reality.  I've been at pains to make it abundantly clear that the ultimate reality will always remain less than 100% known to us.  What I have said is that science allows us to know something of reality - not all of it.  

 

So Yes, I agree.  

It would be logically fallacious to claim that science deals with ultimate reality.  But since I haven't said this, that particular logical fallacy doesn't apply to me.  Nor to anything I've written about it, in this thread.  If the Dude still thinks that's what I'm saying, then I've totally failed to communicate what I actually mean to him.  

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If this is what you are referring to with your No Scotsman Fallacy, then I retract it immediately!

Please check back and you will see that I've edited my post to remove the word ultimate.  I fully and completely admit to having erred in using that word and I fully and completely admit that I shouldn't have used it.  Please also note that I make no distinction between reality and ultimate reality.  

 

Two things should now be evident, Dude.

First, I'm fallible and make mistakes... just like everyone else.  Second, because I have retracted my usage of the word 'ultimate', my arguments in this thread should no longer suffer from the flaw of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

In edition, the term ultimate reality is mixed up with loaded religious meanings. We were talking about ultimate knowledge and knowing in a scientific, not religious context. That changed to the term ultimate reality which I simply took as making reference to ultimate knowledge, such as origins and what reality actually is. That choice of terms might give the wrong impression. 

 

The no true Scotsman assertion was funny, but I don't think at any point you were actually making the logical fallacy in the context of your posts, BAA. You weren't suggesting that there is an ultimate true reality and that any other version of reality isn't true reality. That would be the context of a no true Scotman fallacy. But you obviously never committed that fallacy. It was just funny and clever of the Dude to accuse you of making the no true Scotsman fallacy based only on the usage of the terms reality and ultimate reality. So perhaps you should retract your guilt! lol

 

 

 

I will however go so far as to claim that what we perceive as reality, is not ultimate reality. And it's not a fallacy to say so, either. Because we know that what we perceive of the external world is a 'representation in our minds' of something that isn't perceived directly. That something that we're 'not perceiving directly' is the true or ultimate reality behind our perceptions of it. That doesn't suggest a supernatural reality behind the scene, it only need suggest that natural reality itself eludes our direct perception and understanding. The lecture I posted substantiates that claim and it's well worth going through. And from that understanding comes the notion of ultimate knowledge and every other question of ultimate's eluding us. 

 

It's not fallacious because it doesn't suggest that something that could well be true (a Scotsman), isn't true because it doesn't fit some logically fallacious criteria (a True Scotsman). It's all true when it comes to reality - both the directly and indirectly perceived. It's just that we only perceive that truth of existence and reality from the perspective of an evolved species of Great Ape with limitations of perception prohibiting the animal from perceiving reality directly. That's what this boils down to. Facing the fact that we're Great Apes as we live and breathe who have evolved on the earth and are as of yet unable to perceive reality in an ultimate fashion. 

 

We ought to keep this in mind while discussing science. And that seems to me the point that the Dude has been trying to make about the limitations of science. It's not anti-science, just pro-truth seeking and calling things as they actually are and not pretending to know anything that we don't actually know, or can never know. That's a point well made. 

 

The flip side is that even though we don't know in an ultimate sense, that doesn't mean science shouldn't continually strive to make previously unknowns, known. That could go on and on. It's beneficial to have science regardless of whether or not it operates with ultimate knowledge or describes ultimate reality. That's where the BAA's and Joshpantera's of the world meet and merge....

 

 

[duderonomy]

16 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

As for "as much critical thinking as it takes", you have admitted that your science can't even show that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. So are you using critical thinking, or are you interpreting data based on what you want to be true, or what is 'probably' true?

You weren't being flippant about critical thinking were you? As much as it takes, you said, and that's fine but we both have to employ it right?

 

No Dude, I didn't admit that science can't even show that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

 

Here's what I wrote, in answer to you on this issue, in post # 32.

 

"It's agreed between us that science can't show with 100% confidence that the Earth isn't standing still at the center of the universe."

 

Now, please tell me exactly what I admitted to in the above sentence.

I hope that you will clearly and unequivocally say what the difference is between what you said I admitted to and what I actually admitted to.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

 

 

Ok. You aren't admitting that Earth is the center of the universe, but that in fact it may be sitting still at the center of the universe and science can't show with %100 confidence that it isn't.

 

As for #78, neener neener! Told you so! Ha!   And I hereby retract the cheeky Scotsman fallacy accusation. It was mostly in fun, as Josh correctly said.