Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Ideological Fundamentalists

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 12:33:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Fundamentalism is not distinct to any ideology. From the religious to the scientific, we find a tendency for advocates to create dogmata out of their respective principles.

In the case of unscientific ideologies, we are dealing with unfalsifiability, conjecture which cannot be proven or disproven. However, religious fundamentalists in many cases make absolute assertions, assertions which in their minds can be proven but never disproven. For instance, a religious fundamentalist's belief in God may have absolute support by the witness he, or she, finds in Nature. However, the skeptic who doubts the undeniable witness of Nature, to the religious fundamentalist, is only being insincere. Other than the concretization of an abstract concept, the problem with a concrete god which acquires irrefutable proof is the religious fundamentalist's immodest presumption of drawing an unquestionable conclusion.

However, this phenomenon is not particular to unscientific ideologies. There are advocates of scientific ideologies, as well, who have a religious adherence to scientific theories. Even though they may admit, in theory, principles of any given scientific theory are falsifiable, in practice, they operate under a paradigm which is heretical to question.

It is not enough to admit the principles of one's ideology are falsifiable; the advocate must believe they are indeed falsifiable. It is easy to put too much confidence (rather, it is very difficult not to do so) in phenomena with high degrees of probability. With some theories, anomalies are so improbable the incidence of one is scrutinized with great suspicion. Being critical of an anomaly is not a shortcoming of sincere scientists. However, active denial of an actual anomaly is. Any scientific ideology must take an unbiased approach to anomalies, meaning even though an anomaly is highly improbable, a critical eye is essential but a blind eye is detrimental to the sustainability of any ideology.

The very things which separate scientists from religious fundamentalists are probabilities. Both believe in a world of objectivity. However, the scientist who determines possibilities in place of probabilities leaves the domain of science for the realm of conjecture.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 3:11:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 12:33:04 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Fundamentalism is not distinct to any ideology. From the religious to the scientific, we find a tendency for advocates to create dogmata out of their respective principles.

In the case of unscientific ideologies, we are dealing with unfalsifiability, conjecture which cannot be proven or disproven. However, religious fundamentalists in many cases make absolute assertions, assertions which in their minds can be proven but never disproven. For instance, a religious fundamentalist's belief in God may have absolute support by the witness he, or she, finds in Nature. However, the skeptic who doubts the undeniable witness of Nature, to the religious fundamentalist, is only being insincere. Other than the concretization of an abstract concept, the problem with a concrete god which acquires irrefutable proof is the religious fundamentalist's immodest presumption of drawing an unquestionable conclusion.

However, this phenomenon is not particular to unscientific ideologies. There are advocates of scientific ideologies, as well, who have a religious adherence to scientific theories. Even though they may admit, in theory, principles of any given scientific theory are falsifiable, in practice, they operate under a paradigm which is heretical to question.

Sorry, but I call BS on that one. Provide real examples.

It is not enough to admit the principles of one's ideology are falsifiable; the advocate must believe they are indeed falsifiable. It is easy to put too much confidence (rather, it is very difficult not to do so) in phenomena with high degrees of probability. With some theories, anomalies are so improbable the incidence of one is scrutinized with great suspicion. Being critical of an anomaly is not a shortcoming of sincere scientists. However, active denial of an actual anomaly is. Any scientific ideology must take an unbiased approach to anomalies, meaning even though an anomaly is highly improbable, a critical eye is essential but a blind eye is detrimental to the sustainability of any ideology.

I'm not sure what your point is here, anomalies are what they are, they don't provide the consistency to warrant a consistent explanation or equation. Again, what is our point here?

The very things which separate scientists from religious fundamentalists are probabilities.

Evidence is a huge factor between science and religion, probabilities have little to do with the outcome of any given phenomenon.

Both believe in a world of objectivity.

The religious have faith in "things that are unseen", hence they have little if any objectivity.

However, the scientist who determines possibilities in place of probabilities leaves the domain of science for the realm of conjecture.

Sorry, but possibilities and probabilities are not the crux of how science works. Try the Scientific Method, that's what works.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:37:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I'm not sure what your point is here, anomalies are what they are, they don't provide the consistency to warrant a consistent explanation or equation. Again, what is our point here?

My point is it doesn't matter if a phenomenon happens every second of every day or only once in 13.8 billion years; an actual phenomenon is an actual phenomenon. For you to say it's not real or because it's always been this way therefore it will continue to be this way is extremely presumptuous on your part.

Evidence is a huge factor between science and religion, probabilities have little to do with the outcome of any given phenomenon.

Are you saying the probability of a phenomenon has little to do with the outcome to be expected?

If that were the case, why even determine a phenomenon's probability?

What is the significance of scientific predictions if probability is meaningless?

Why have any expectations at all?

The religious have faith in "things that are unseen", hence they have little if any objectivity.

Religious faith may be predicated on invisible things, but religious fundamentalism is based on the assumption unseen things are real.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:21:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:37:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is here, anomalies are what they are, they don't provide the consistency to warrant a consistent explanation or equation. Again, what is our point here?

My point is it doesn't matter if a phenomenon happens every second of every day or only once in 13.8 billion years; an actual phenomenon is an actual phenomenon. For you to say it's not real or because it's always been this way therefore it will continue to be this way is extremely presumptuous on your part.

Yes, if I actually said any of that, but I didn't.

Evidence is a huge factor between science and religion, probabilities have little to do with the outcome of any given phenomenon.

Are you saying the probability of a phenomenon has little to do with the outcome to be expected?

It might show the probability to be wrong or at the very least, slightly off a bit. Since we understand many phenomena now, we can better predict accurate probabilities.

If that were the case, why even determine a phenomenon's probability?

Because an intelligent prediction is far more relevant than an uneducated guess.

What is the significance of scientific predictions if probability is meaningless?

That would make predictions much harder to make thus creating a lot more work for scientists.

Why have any expectations at all?

Why get out of bed in the morning?


The religious have faith in "things that are unseen", hence they have little if any objectivity.

Religious faith may be predicated on invisible things, but religious fundamentalism is based on the assumption unseen things are real.

Have any fundamentalists ever shown their unseen things are real?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:42:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Are you saying the probability of a phenomenon has little to do with the outcome to be expected?

It might show the probability to be wrong or at the very least, slightly off a bit.

Exactly my point.

Have any fundamentalists ever shown their unseen things are real?

Not to my knowledge, but, maybe, that's the reason I'm not a fundamentalist.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 4:25:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:42:42 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Are you saying the probability of a phenomenon has little to do with the outcome to be expected?

It might show the probability to be wrong or at the very least, slightly off a bit.

Exactly my point.

It's not a problem at all if a probability is shown to be incorrect, it is the results of testing those probabilities that matters.

Have any fundamentalists ever shown their unseen things are real?

Not to my knowledge, but, maybe, that's the reason I'm not a fundamentalist.

Glad to hear that. (:
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 5:43:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
It's not a problem at all if a probability is shown to be incorrect, it is the results of testing those probabilities that matters.

It's not a probability is incorrect; a probability is a probability. The important thing is to realize it is only a probability, and not the only possibility.