Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:31-38|Last Page
Jump to topic:

It is irrational to care about science

j_lowe
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:10:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/12/2013 6:08:10 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:17:30 AM, j_lowe wrote:
... He says typing on a computer that communicates through a human made network, wearing synthetic fabrics in a building of solid construction that is hooked up to the electricity grid, some power of which is provided through nuclear power stations, and most of the rest of which is powered from non renewable Fuels that will run out in a relatively short space of time. I'm sure you probably also drive, take medication, and use a mobile phone: and probably also use gps through those same devices....

Unless your Amish, it is probably wise you shut up claiming science has no purpose and you shouldn't care about it, whilst at the same time reaping all the rewards of living in a society that is built on 300 or so years of modern science.

I live in the world I live in, and was born when I was born.

If none of the things you mention were in place maybe I would be growing my own food, making my own clothes, and living in a tent, instead of wasting my time on the internet, that seems like a fair trade.

Maybe the polar ice caps wouldn't be melting, maybe there wouldn't be dead zones in the ocean, Maybe we wouldn't be under the constant threat of nuclear, biological, or chemical war/terrorism.

Maybe if some science-y type can build a time machine and get me to a point in history that is not on the brink of human extinction (mainly due to the misuse of science and technology) then I will say science was useful.

From Wikipedia -

"One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[18] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically

If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them.[19]"

I guess we will not be having a constructive dialogue....

And maybe you would have been one of the billions that would have died from various curable disease, conditions or hunger.

Lets be clear, this thread ls not about the various benefits of different words views, or the validity materialism, but you making the absurd statement that it irrational to care about science, the one modern concept that has the biggest impact on your life, for better or worse.

As such it ceased to be constructive conversation the moment you hit 'add thread'.

So people who want to discuss the inconsistencies of materialism, or scientific rationalism have to use smoke signals?
j_lowe
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:13:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/12/2013 6:08:10 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:17:30 AM, j_lowe wrote:
... He says typing on a computer that communicates through a human made network, wearing synthetic fabrics in a building of solid construction that is hooked up to the electricity grid, some power of which is provided through nuclear power stations, and most of the rest of which is powered from non renewable Fuels that will run out in a relatively short space of time. I'm sure you probably also drive, take medication, and use a mobile phone: and probably also use gps through those same devices....

Unless your Amish, it is probably wise you shut up claiming science has no purpose and you shouldn't care about it, whilst at the same time reaping all the rewards of living in a society that is built on 300 or so years of modern science.

I live in the world I live in, and was born when I was born.

If none of the things you mention were in place maybe I would be growing my own food, making my own clothes, and living in a tent, instead of wasting my time on the internet, that seems like a fair trade.

Maybe the polar ice caps wouldn't be melting, maybe there wouldn't be dead zones in the ocean, Maybe we wouldn't be under the constant threat of nuclear, biological, or chemical war/terrorism.

Maybe if some science-y type can build a time machine and get me to a point in history that is not on the brink of human extinction (mainly due to the misuse of science and technology) then I will say science was useful.

From Wikipedia -

"One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[18] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically

If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them.[19]"

I guess we will not be having a constructive dialogue....

And maybe you would have been one of the billions that would have died from various curable disease, conditions or hunger.

Lets be clear, this thread ls not about the various benefits of different words views, or the validity materialism, but you making the absurd statement that it irrational to care about science, the one modern concept that has the biggest impact on your life, for better or worse.

As such it ceased to be constructive conversation the moment you hit 'add thread'.

Or perhaps questioning the philosophic underpinnings of science is Taboo?
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:53:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:10:50 AM, j_lowe wrote:
At 2/12/2013 6:08:10 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:17:30 AM, j_lowe wrote:
... He says typing on a computer that communicates through a human made network, wearing synthetic fabrics in a building of solid construction that is hooked up to the electricity grid, some power of which is provided through nuclear power stations, and most of the rest of which is powered from non renewable Fuels that will run out in a relatively short space of time. I'm sure you probably also drive, take medication, and use a mobile phone: and probably also use gps through those same devices....

Unless your Amish, it is probably wise you shut up claiming science has no purpose and you shouldn't care about it, whilst at the same time reaping all the rewards of living in a society that is built on 300 or so years of modern science.

I live in the world I live in, and was born when I was born.

If none of the things you mention were in place maybe I would be growing my own food, making my own clothes, and living in a tent, instead of wasting my time on the internet, that seems like a fair trade.

Maybe the polar ice caps wouldn't be melting, maybe there wouldn't be dead zones in the ocean, Maybe we wouldn't be under the constant threat of nuclear, biological, or chemical war/terrorism.

Maybe if some science-y type can build a time machine and get me to a point in history that is not on the brink of human extinction (mainly due to the misuse of science and technology) then I will say science was useful.

From Wikipedia -

"One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[18] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically

If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them.[19]"

I guess we will not be having a constructive dialogue....

And maybe you would have been one of the billions that would have died from various curable disease, conditions or hunger.

Lets be clear, this thread ls not about the various benefits of different words views, or the validity materialism, but you making the absurd statement that it irrational to care about science, the one modern concept that has the biggest impact on your life, for better or worse.

As such it ceased to be constructive conversation the moment you hit 'add thread'.

So people who want to discuss the inconsistencies of materialism, or scientific rationalism have to use smoke signals?

No, you just have to use the phrase 'is materialism is inconsistent because....' rather than making a claim that caring about science is irrational.

For example, using the possibility of extinction, death destruction and terrorism (a significant amount in modern times revolving around religion rather than lab coats) it is evident that you care about science although not positively it seems.

This begs the question of why you expect anyone to engage in a rational discussion with a person whom by virtue of their own arguments can be shown to be irrational.
j_lowe
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 8:41:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:53:45 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:10:50 AM, j_lowe wrote:
At 2/12/2013 6:08:10 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:17:30 AM, j_lowe wrote:
... He says typing on a computer that communicates through a human made network, wearing synthetic fabrics in a building of solid construction that is hooked up to the electricity grid, some power of which is provided through nuclear power stations, and most of the rest of which is powered from non renewable Fuels that will run out in a relatively short space of time. I'm sure you probably also drive, take medication, and use a mobile phone: and probably also use gps through those same devices....

Unless your Amish, it is probably wise you shut up claiming science has no purpose and you shouldn't care about it, whilst at the same time reaping all the rewards of living in a society that is built on 300 or so years of modern science.

I live in the world I live in, and was born when I was born.

If none of the things you mention were in place maybe I would be growing my own food, making my own clothes, and living in a tent, instead of wasting my time on the internet, that seems like a fair trade.

Maybe the polar ice caps wouldn't be melting, maybe there wouldn't be dead zones in the ocean, Maybe we wouldn't be under the constant threat of nuclear, biological, or chemical war/terrorism.

Maybe if some science-y type can build a time machine and get me to a point in history that is not on the brink of human extinction (mainly due to the misuse of science and technology) then I will say science was useful.

From Wikipedia -

"One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[18] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically

If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them.[19]"

I guess we will not be having a constructive dialogue....

And maybe you would have been one of the billions that would have died from various curable disease, conditions or hunger.

Lets be clear, this thread ls not about the various benefits of different words views, or the validity materialism, but you making the absurd statement that it irrational to care about science, the one modern concept that has the biggest impact on your life, for better or worse.

As such it ceased to be constructive conversation the moment you hit 'add thread'.

So people who want to discuss the inconsistencies of materialism, or scientific rationalism have to use smoke signals?

No, you just have to use the phrase 'is materialism is inconsistent because....' rather than making a claim that caring about science is irrational.

For example, using the possibility of extinction, death destruction and terrorism (a significant amount in modern times revolving around religion rather than lab coats) it is evident that you care about science although not positively it seems.

This begs the question of why you expect anyone to engage in a rational discussion with a person whom by virtue of their own arguments can be shown to be irrational.

OK in order to eliminate all confusion I will revise my Thesis Statement...

"Due to fundamental inconsistencies in the materialistic, and scientific rational worldviews, it is irrational for people who subscribe to them to care about science"

- A critique by someone who does not subscribe to these worldviews and therefore can care about these things without inconsistency
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:44:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:
I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?
Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

Science can only seek to answer questions about nature and our universe. It can only deal with the physical realm, what can be sensed, measured, and detected.

If another realm is present, a spiritual realm, science can't speak to anything within, or involving that realm because it isn't physical. It doesn't manifest itself in a way that makes it detectable by scientific means. Science may very well be examining God's creation without even knowing that it's God's creation. True science, even when it can provide an answer, doesn't deal in truths, it is limited to probabilities, the most likely answer that can be explained within our physical universe. Therein lies the problem. If the truth isn't something that can be detected physically, then providing a naturalistic answer just assumes that naturalistic answer must be correct. Therefore, it's important to decide what questions science has the capacity to answer.

Why should you care about science or truth?? Science may be able to tell you how a thought comes about in the brain, detection of stimuli, neurons firing, blah blah, but it can't weigh in on the deeper, more philosophical question of why you should care, or why truth is important to us. I think the fact that we have such questions is what sets us apart, and makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom. I think God made us curious about our world so that we would realize that there are questions that science can never answer. We realize that only something in that spiritual realm can answer those questions.

All that to say this...I disagree that it is irrational to care about science. Good science affects every aspect of our lives. But science can't provide truths, so why turn to science for the truth?? Therefore I agree with you that God can be the only rational source for truth.
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:40:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/12/2013 8:41:23 AM, j_lowe wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:45 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:10:50 AM, j_lowe wrote:
At 2/12/2013 6:08:10 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:17:30 AM, j_lowe wrote:
... He says typing on a computer that communicates through a human made network, wearing synthetic fabrics in a building of solid construction that is hooked up to the electricity grid, some power of which is provided through nuclear power stations, and most of the rest of which is powered from non renewable Fuels that will run out in a relatively short space of time. I'm sure you probably also drive, take medication, and use a mobile phone: and probably also use gps through those same devices....

Unless your Amish, it is probably wise you shut up claiming science has no purpose and you shouldn't care about it, whilst at the same time reaping all the rewards of living in a society that is built on 300 or so years of modern science.

I live in the world I live in, and was born when I was born.

If none of the things you mention were in place maybe I would be growing my own food, making my own clothes, and living in a tent, instead of wasting my time on the internet, that seems like a fair trade.

Maybe the polar ice caps wouldn't be melting, maybe there wouldn't be dead zones in the ocean, Maybe we wouldn't be under the constant threat of nuclear, biological, or chemical war/terrorism.

Maybe if some science-y type can build a time machine and get me to a point in history that is not on the brink of human extinction (mainly due to the misuse of science and technology) then I will say science was useful.

From Wikipedia -

"One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[18] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically

If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them.[19]"

I guess we will not be having a constructive dialogue....

And maybe you would have been one of the billions that would have died from various curable disease, conditions or hunger.

Lets be clear, this thread ls not about the various benefits of different words views, or the validity materialism, but you making the absurd statement that it irrational to care about science, the one modern concept that has the biggest impact on your life, for better or worse.

As such it ceased to be constructive conversation the moment you hit 'add thread'.

So people who want to discuss the inconsistencies of materialism, or scientific rationalism have to use smoke signals?

No, you just have to use the phrase 'is materialism is inconsistent because....' rather than making a claim that caring about science is irrational.

For example, using the possibility of extinction, death destruction and terrorism (a significant amount in modern times revolving around religion rather than lab coats) it is evident that you care about science although not positively it seems.

This begs the question of why you expect anyone to engage in a rational discussion with a person whom by virtue of their own arguments can be shown to be irrational.


OK in order to eliminate all confusion I will revise my Thesis Statement...

"Due to fundamental inconsistencies in the materialistic, and scientific rational worldviews, it is irrational for people who subscribe to them to care about science"

- A critique by someone who does not subscribe to these worldviews and therefore can care about these things without inconsistency

If by inconsistencies, you mean limitations, and by care about you mean 'use as a ubiquitous world view that answers all possible philosophical questions' then there maybe a discussion.

Saying it is irrational to care about science not only does not follow from your premise, but it could have been replaced with 'therefore pudding' and it would have been no less logical.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:04:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:
I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?
Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

If science wasn't meant to be considered truth, why would God allow it to be taught that it is truth?

1) He doesn't possess enough influence on people to turn them away from science.

2) Satan is more influential than God. Which would make him more powerful than God, at least in some aspects.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:34:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:
I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?
Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)


we care to get a better understanding of the world because that helps us enjoy things.

Having the capacity to reflect upon our conceptions like this, such that we can consciously try to perfect our conceptions to where they best represent the way things are is, on top of this Hedonistic good that I mentioned, is most probably evolutionarily beneficial too :)

God didn't do it.

God isn't necessary to explain how you feel.

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

Scientifically testable...

Hmm... I'll just leave my conjectures as Perfectly Sensible, in Conformity with contemporary scientific understanding of the world, and Sufficient to explain the phenomena of my caring about stuff, including my having a good understanding of things.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.