Xooxer wrote:
But then, if science is really plastic, contradictions should be welcomed. Not if they are contradictions that have no credible evidence or no way to test them. Any good scientist will tell you that while questions like the existence of god are interesting to think about, no scientific judgement can be made because of lack of evidence and/or ability to create a working experiment. | |
Magicsofa wrote:
Xooxer wrote: Life is a living experiment. Science has even found a common bond between all matter (which should be obvious) which is theorized as "God" particle/molecule. Ultimately people at their nature bend to their own biases. Things they see or believe to be more likely to be true are what they will adhere to. Case in point if a woman loves a man she is less likely to believe his deceit or lies, or vice versa. People who grow up with their parents ideals, no matter how twisted or perverse scarcely question them unless an outside force reveals to them the flaw in their own consciousness. People say science is fact. But what about a fact that you can't prove to others? I could tell you that every prayer I've ever had has been answered. The answer has been either, yes, no or not right now. People assume that God deals in wants, God deals in necessities. Their misunderstanding of that is what prevents most people from finding the "facts" they need to make an informed decision of God's existence. Likewise they make a conscious choice to focus on the physical instead of the spiritual, despite the fact that all people are made up of various intangibles such as emotions of hurt, pride or anger , all things unseen but felt. My point in all of this is that no one's judgement is perfect because your feelings towards the matter will color the situation in the light you want to see it in. If you innately believe the idea of a big foot is "insane", that's how you will view it, regardless of what someone tells you, until you are getting confronted by "indisputable" like getting confronted with one or getting mauled by one. That means that regardless of what you say, or how much lack of tangibility you present, you also can't absolutely say it doesn't exist just as much as he can't say it exists with 100% certainty. Air exists, yet thousands of years were needed to understand it. Even in chemistry no one has deciphered any and all the keys of nature, and it's the same with any science. So why is that? His point of view seems more plausible, since yours seems jaded by your own emotions and the standpoint you seem to have taken on it. Science is about facts, just grabbing facts to support how you feel about something isn't science at all. | |
Xooxer wrote:
Kalzar wrote: I explained to you the errors in relatively laymen terms. Again lets do it again: the DNA samples she found, when amplification was performed (take a small sample, duplicate it to make a larger sample for different tests and futher analyzation) did not form normal double helixes. The DNA binded to homologous regions forming both single and double helix complexes. That's is not expected to be found in a pure sample of DNA from the same species. Additionally, the DNA protein analysis returned modern human DNA. That should not happen if she is estimating the time when the species diverged. If there was enough human DNA to be recognized in the samples and she's going with the hybrid theory that means the human DNA is very large and recognizable. However, every generation, DNA undergoes recombination and mixes and jumbles around. If hybridization occurred approximately when she is estimating then the number of successive generations that have resulted should have recombined and diluted the percent of the DNA that would be modern human. You're not going to understand because you believe so strongly that this evidence proves something that you want to be proved. Evidence is evidence if it is real and reproducible. Similar to Dr. Ketchum believing her own evidence, I don't think she's conning anybody, I just simply think it's good old fashion confirmation bias. Sigh. Xooxer wrote: Kalzar wrote: No. She used a sample that was later proven to be bear DNA contaminated with the hunter's DNA. She didn't know it when she took his sample, it was announced after she already sent her samples for analyzation. This shows that her methodology is faulty because she used contaminated DNA yet in the paper did not mention it was contaminated but instead a hybrid animal. She's not trying to cut her own throat, she is just cherry picking data to prove her hypothesis. That is a severe case of academic misconduct. Now the DNA lines up more with a lemur than a ape? Or she keeps changing her hypothesis to suit the data...cherry picking. She mentioned also that her findings contract Darwinian evolution. Come on. I left you with a quote a few posts ago, to summarize: exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. If she is going to attempt to pretend Darwinian evolution doesn't exist without reproducible proof, she's almost as bad as the creationists preaching their beliefs in elementary school. Xooxer, I don't really know how else to explain it to you. I don't know your background, but the way you've been debating (if I can even call it that) leads me to believe that you don't have a science background. The scientific method is a flow chart: question ---> hypothesis --> experiment --> data --> results --> conclusion. If any part does not hold up, then the conclusions are invalidate. It's very hard to debate somebody when you list facts disproving the reliability of evidence thus revealing a fundamental flaw in the methodology that refutes the scientific method, and they turn around and say your facts are wrong because they believe or say that they don't see any fundamental flaws. One more time, I believe in unexplainable phenomena, however if you want to go ahead and make a large claim about a fringe discovery you better back it up with reliable, reproducible and accurate evidence which currently she does not have. | |
Dariuc wrote:
His point of view seems more plausible, since yours seems jaded by your own emotions and the standpoint you seem to have taken on it. Science is about facts, just grabbing facts to support how you feel about something isn't science at all. Well said. I mentioned somewhere in this thread about confirmation bias and I agree that both Xooxer and Dr. Ketchum want to believe so badly, that they refuse to acknowledge the evidence does not support their hypothesis. | |
Dariuc wrote:
My point in all of this is that no one's judgement is perfect because your feelings towards the matter will color the situation in the light you want to see it in. That's totally right. For someone who has been told all their lives that God is this bearded dude in heaven who will guide you to salvation, it doesn't seem very far-fetched. Instead of thinking that their prayers were "answered" by the power of their own will, they assume that some external force looked down and said "make it so." Many people have a hard time seeing through the correlation-not-cause problem. Just because event B usually happens after event A doesn't mean that A caused B. Just because YOU don't understand the mechanisms causing you to feel emotions, doesn't mean there isn't a physical, tangible explanation. It just means that you don't know. You also don't know if the bearded God of judeo-christian tradition really exists. You also don't know if Sasquatch exists. However, Sasquatch is supposed to be a big furry humanoid that roams the earth. The existence of God is hard to get any evidence of, for obvious reasons. But the existence of Sasquatch, with people all over the world desperately trying to come up with evidence...forget it. Yeah, it's possible. But it's probably not worth looking into, since nobody has had any interactions with these creatures. If they actually show themselves, or if God shows himself, then I'll pay attention. Science is not about facts, its about statistics. It's about testing things to such an extent that we can safely accept it as fact. Sometimes we are wrong, and what was considered fact has to be revised. All good scientists are prepared for this at every turn, and understand that nothing is 100% certain because we cannot do an infinite number of tests to find out. The "you can't say it doesn't exist" applies to any whacko idea you can come up with. Never seen a unicorn? Well, you can't prove it doesn't exist because you haven't explored every corner of the universe! What a waste of time | |
Magicsofa wrote:
Dariuc wrote: Actually I wasn't "told" anything about God. I don't go to church and it's my personal belief that most people who do are hypocrites who pervert the truth. However, in my point of view I find a lot of atheists to be angry at God so let me put it into perspective for you. If you had kids and you provided everything they needed to the best of your ability (key word, needed- and maybe a few things they wanted to keep them happy). You did your best to keep your child out of harms way, kept them from all that you know was wrong, or bad for them, due to nothing but the love you share for them like a good parent would do. But..... after some years, they grew rebellious and just generally unruly towards you, through no foreseeable fault of your own,how would that make you feel and who would be at fault in that situation? Since your feelings towards everything shapes you to an extent, then it stands to reason that what you feel alters and shapes your own reality. Put another way, what you want to do, you will usually do and that is in line with your wants and needs. Two separate entities. Neither of which you as a human can deny, you need to eat, but you may refuse to because you want your favorite food (as an example). People assume their lives are over because of what they "Feel" and thus commit suicide, while the same person may have once felt they had everything to live for. Perception is reality. It's not my place to say what is and what isn't for you. Because only you can know what is and what is to be, for yourself. What exists and what does not in your head is for you to answer. There exists however in this great wide universe a root to all things. You seem know of God what other people tell you, thus your perception of what the origin of all is, is what's flawed. After all for something that is everything, the human mind that we already established can only see what it wants to see, will only see of God what it is ready and willing to see. When you don't seek the answer for yourself, how can you even attempt to know what something is or means to you? If you can't ask the question without all the bias and seek to find a viable answer by giving it 100% clarity and truthfulness to yourself- how do you really know? Back to the child-- If your child hated you, denied you and disliked you for no reason.. what would you do? Would you force your thoughts and views upon them? I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone to do that to you, or to your child or anyone that you truly care about,an enslaved heart isn't worth possessing. When someone loves they show it of their own free will and that's also when it means the most. So if you made a house for your child, told them they could have anything they wanted, as long as they adhered to a few ground rules, how would you feel when the ingrateful little child decided against you? Probably about how God felt. You say that there isn't any evidence of God, yet everything has to have come from somewhere. Whether it was the "accepted" explosion of life, all things come from an origin, thereby everything is connected on a basic level, metal and you, metal and air, fire and water, all the same. So if you were going to speak to someone without using words how would you do it? Next you'll say that emotions aren't a viable form of communication? Yet you can tell often when someone is mad, primal instincts can que a person in to danger and life threatening situations with fear and forboding. I could go on for a while I just don't feel inclined to. You don't see evidence of God because you avert your eyes so that you don't have to. It's sort of like the child analogy only in reverse. God didn't screw up earth, men did. Men do evil, men pervert it. The planet was a big paradise before men started mucking about on it. So how does that make anger directed at God even remotely founded or justified? Does God owe you a magical end to your problems or struggles? A free ride? Anything at all? Food's provided, shelther provided. And never in any of my days have I gone without that, so dispute that? There is this lovely science called math. An statistics, and probability. If everyday for years I consistently am cared for and looked out for and content, most times through no fault of my own, without ever wanting for something I truly NEEDED, then that would about fulfill promises God gave to me. Statistically speaking, that's a staggering chain of coincedence, made even more unlikely when you throw probability into the mix. Just as improbable as the perfect conditions to birth a solar system. Ultimately you'll believe what you want. I'm just saying your disbelief in God doesn't make him/her any less real. Just like your disbelief in bigfoot doesn't make him / her any less real. | |
I spoke with Bigfoot just the other day ( he's a close friend of my father ). We grilled some hot dogs and discussed our NCAA brackets. He's got Memphis going all the way but personally I think Michigan's got this in the bag.
| |
Kalzar wrote:
I explained to you the errors in relatively laymen terms. Uh. Really? Those seemed like technical terms to me. I wanted to refute it, but it would have required a bit pf study of molecular biology, which I don't have time for right now (not that I'm not interested, mind you, it's just very cold outside, and I'm pressing my luck pirating this connection >_>). the DNA samples she found, when amplification was performed (take a small sample, duplicate it to make a larger sample for different tests and futher analyzation) did not form normal double helixes. Right, but doesn't that naturally occur in hybrids? I mean, you stated as much yourself in the previous explanation. She also said so in her first interview, which I linked to. The DNA binded to homologous regions forming both single and double helix complexes. That's is not expected to be found in a pure sample of DNA from the same species. I'll have to take your word on that. Additionally, the DNA protein analysis returned modern human DNA. That should not happen if she is estimating the time when the species diverged. Are you saying modern humans didn't exist 13,000 years ago? That's not true. Modern humans have been around for, what, 100,000 years or so? If there was enough human DNA to be recognized in the samples and she's going with the hybrid theory that means the human DNA is very large and recognizable. Why does it mean that? However, every generation, DNA undergoes recombination and mixes and jumbles around. If hybridization occurred approximately when she is estimating then the number of successive generations that have resulted should have recombined and diluted the percent of the DNA that would be modern human. How so? Sure, if Bigfoot was a one-off from modern humans, then went back to mating with the progenitor species, I could see that being the case. On the other hand, given the vast accounts (sorry, hoaxes and fairy tales), Bigfoot has been mating with modern humans pretty much right up until the modern day. Evidence is evidence if it is real and reproducible. Since she claims her work *is* reproducible, the onus is on science to prove that it's not. Since we're still waiting for independent verification, I don't see how you can claim her work isn't reproducible. No. She used a sample that was later proven Hold it right there cowboy. Proven? As in, scientifically, peer-reviewed and published? What's that? Oh you just read it on some blog? Double standard much? I'm going to dismiss the rest of this, unless you can give me good reason to believe this blogger. Or she keeps changing her hypothesis to suit the data...cherry picking. Actually, clarifying would be more appropriate a descriptive, since she never before claimed to know the origin of the unknown DNA. And again, her statement was mere speculation, since she herself stated she couldn't be sure. It looked like it, but without further study, and a better catalog of ancient species, it's not really possible to be certain. She mentioned also that her findings contract Darwinian evolution. Come on. I don't know if she said contradict. That's a harsh term. I'll have to go back and listen to the interviews again. By the way, have you listen to her explain herself and her work, or are you, as I suspect, basing your beliefs on what other bloggers have said she said? I know quite a number of those articles you and AJ linked to were slightly off on quite a few points, just going by what she said, and what they claim she said. That's almost as bad as saying evolution doesn't exist as it is perhaps one of the most consistently verified theories out there. You need to have real hard proof to come out and say Darwinian evolution is wrong. Technically, it is wrong. Considering the fountain of knowledge we've gained on the process over time, Darwin's theory falls short of reality. That's not to say it isn't true, it's just that we're still figuring it out, even today. I don't think she ever claimed her paper proves Darwin's theory is wrong, just that it challenges it in some undefined way.
Yes, yes. I've heard all your sound bites and catch phrases before. That doesn't really mean anything, though. Define extraordinary please. If she is going to attempt to pretend Darwinian evolution doesn't exist without reproducible proof, She most certainly never claimed anything of the sort. I'm going to toss this straw man on the fire, cause I can't feel my toes. I hope you don't mind. Xooxer, I don't really know how else to explain it to you. I don't know your background, but the way you've been debating (if I can even call it that) I'm *not* debating. If you would like to debate, we can do that instead. I suggest we start off from a point of agreement and go from there. I'm refuting your statements as false in light of what the lady herself claims. I've pointed out, as best as I am able in the current climate, that your making statements based on belief and false statements, or worse, straw men. leads me to believe that you don't have a science background. I don't have a science background, but then again, I'm not the one trying to prove anything. Dr. Ketchum does have a science background, and she is trying to prove something. I'm only echoing her statements, as well as I can recall them, and batting down these numerous attacks against my character or beliefs, which I might add, I've never stated. The scientific method is a flow chart: question ---> hypothesis --> experiment --> data --> results --> conclusion. I always thought it started with observation. You know, 10,000 people claiming to have observed a big hairy thing walk about on two large feet. Which, by the way, go way back before the Patterson video. Ask you local Native American elders what they think about Bigfoot. If any part does not hold up, then the conclusions are invalidate. It's very hard to debate somebody when you list facts disproving I contend that you have yet to do so. the reliability of evidence thus revealing a fundamental flaw in the methodology that refutes the scientific method, and they turn around and say your facts are wrong because they believe or say that they don't see any fundamental flaws. It's not what I believe that's the issue here. The issue is that no one is looking at the situation with a skeptical mind. I will even concede that that includes myself. A true skeptic doesn't first disbelieve, they wait for all the facts and then come to an educated conclusion based on logic. One more time, I believe in unexplainable phenomena, Prove it. :P (j/k) however if you want to go ahead and make a large claim about a fringe discovery you better back it up with reliable, reproducible and accurate evidence which currently she does not have. Well, you can believe she doesn't have it. That's your right. I'm going to take her word for it until someone can *really* prove her wrong. | |
Kalzar wrote:
Well said. I mentioned somewhere in this thread about confirmation bias and I agree that both Xooxer and Dr. Ketchum want to believe so badly, that they refuse to acknowledge the evidence does not support their hypothesis. For the record, I don't believe in much. I am intensely interested in a great many things, but I like to reserve belief for those things that warrant it. God, for example, or how awesome I am. Those are things I believe. | |
God, for example Yet another region in which we find ourselves opposed! Let us never speak of this again! | |
Ter13 wrote:
God, for example I wasn't aware we were talking at all. Although, if you don't want it mentioned, why bring yourself into it? Seriously, it seems you folks want me to argue with you. Go ahead and not believe in God, just so long as we're both clear on the fact that I'm awesome. ~X | |
Go ahead and not believe in God, just so long as we're both clear on the fact that I'm awesome. Deal. | |
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/11/ like-omg-scientists-have-sequenced-bigfoot-dna/
Ketchum got the DNA off of a half-eaten bagel. How do we know that the DNA on this bagel actually came from a Bigfoot? The person who she received the bagel from claims to be feeding several Bigfeet from her backyard in rural Michigan. Why couldn't she have gotten hair or blood, which would have been less likely to be contaminated? | |
Dariuc Wrote:
...[I find] atheists to be angry at God... I'm about as angry at Yahweh Sabbaoth/Allah/Al Elohim as you are with Zeus, Poseidon, Shiva, Ares, Odin, or any of the thousands of Gods you don't believe in. It's amazing how prevalent that particular nugget of propaganda is amongst the religious quiver of arguments denigrating atheism. It also demonstrates wonderfully the lack of intellectual honesty in the theistic argument, that proponents often resort to simply crying: "You do believe, not only that, but you are just trying to slander someone that you think did you wrongly!", rather than addressing that approximately 14% of human beings have professed no religious preference. Seems to me that it's incredibly rude to tell someone else that they not only are lying about being an atheist, but they are also harboring hateful emotions about a being they claim to not believe in. Ketchum got the DNA off of a half-eaten bagel. Above article buries its legitimate arguments in vitriol and needless mud-slinging. Depressing, really. | |
Dariuc wrote:
Actually I wasn't "told" anything about God. I don't go to church and it's my personal belief that most people who do are hypocrites who pervert the truth. So, you came up with the name "God" and the whole deal about 7 day creation, holy trinity, etc etc, on your own? I specifically referred to the bearded guy in heaven...the LORD as he appears in the bible. If that is who you are talking about then I'm sure you were told a lot of things. Maybe you have your own angle on what the word 'god' refers to. I certainly do, but because my angle is so different from the basic characteristics of the bible God, I can't call myself a Christian. Even so, I was told a lot of things about god and they were all important, even if some of them were wrong in my opinion. However, in my point of view I find a lot of atheists to be angry at God so let me put it into perspective for you. Well I don't really consider myself an atheist anymore, but when I did I was definitely angry at humans, rather than the god they spoke of. And I'm still angry at them. If you had kids and you provided everything they needed to the best of your ability ... after some years, they grew rebellious ... how would that make you feel and who would be at fault in that situation? Would you force your thoughts and views upon them? Probably about how God felt. I would probably wonder what I was doing wrong as a parent, and attempt to change something about the situation to make it better. I will never tell my child they can have anything they want. They would learn that life involves a great deal of suffering, frustration, and challenge (as we all must learn). Hopefully I can teach them to accept the suffering that is inevitable in life, and to get through it with a level head. Anyway, I don't really care if God feels rejected. Seems pretty immature for a supreme being. Then again, this is the same guy who told Abraham to kill his son JUST FOR FUNSIES LOL your wants and needs. Neither of which you as a human can deny, you need to eat, but you may refuse to because you want your favorite food (as an example). Sounds like denying a need to me. People assume their lives are over because of what they "Feel" and thus commit suicide Also denying a need. All of our needs come from the fact that we are alive and basically hard-wired to do anything it takes to stay alive. People who attempt to kill themselves have denied that need. Perception is reality. Not at all. Perception is usually close to reality but it can be misleading. Haven't you ever thought you saw a friend and waved at them, only to realize that it's someone you don't know? You mistakenly connected the image of that person to your memory of your friend. I think you are saying that since you really believe you are looking at your friend, it's true for you at at that moment. But when you walk closer and become embarrassed, you will look back and say "I was wrong." I'm willing to bet that cognitive ability is the basic reason why humans have become so advanced - we can build on past knowledge very quickly. And with our great deal of knowledge it would be wise to conclude that perception is not *always* reality. It's not my place to say what is and what isn't for you. Because only you can know what is and what is to be, for yourself. What exists and what does not in your head is for you to answer. Yeah, kinda. It's not like I can just think "this perceived fire in front of me does not exist" and then stick my hand in there without getting burned. I think I know what you are getting at - the subjectivity of human experience is very powerful in shaping our actions. And I guess for something that is completely intangible, just an idea in a book, you can come up with your own conclusion about whether you think it's real or not. But it doesn't matter what your conclusion is - it's still based on NO evidence, the definition of faith. You seem know of God what other people tell you, thus your perception of what the origin of all is, is what's flawed. I have heard a lot of different things, but mostly I think that what other people tell me about God is flawed. After all for something that is everything, the human mind that we already established can only see what it wants to see, will only see of God what it is ready and willing to see. Okay, so you consider God to be "everything." Doesn't that mean that I am part of God, and all people that I have seen and interacted with, as well as everything I have seen on earth, in the sky, etc...all part of God? That's great and all, but it doesn't complete the Christian description of God, which is the one that people argue against. Tell an atheist that God is everything, AND that the bible is a load of shit, and they will probably be like "okay, sure" When you don't seek the answer for yourself, how can you even attempt to know what something is or means to you? If you can't ask the question without all the bias and seek to find a viable answer by giving it 100% clarity and truthfulness to yourself- how do you really know? I don't think people who believe in the LORD God, have sought the answer for themselves. They have read the answer out of a damn book. Those who seek their own answer are generally called atheists. You say that there isn't any evidence of God, yet everything has to have come from somewhere. Yeah, thousands of years of worshipping things like the Sun (which actually makes sense) eventually evolved into human-like deities, and the Christian God happens to be a very popular one right now. You don't see evidence of God because you avert your eyes so that you don't have to. Actually I have tried to read the bible on more than one occasion, and sometimes I listen to christian talk radio. I don't really set out to disagree with anything, and there are often good morals behind what these people say. However, it's usually supplemented with an outdated superstition about the Big Man who will let you sniff his heavenly balls if you just promise that you love Jesus, or repent, or whatever version of getting on His Good Side they are talking about at the time. God didn't screw up earth, men did. God would however be directly responsible, since he gave us free will. The planet was a big paradise before men started mucking about on it. Yeah, being eaten by dinosaurs is the definition of paradise. Also freezing to death in a glacier is high on my list. So how does that make anger directed at God even remotely founded or justified? It doesn't. Does God owe you a magical end to your problems or struggles? A free ride? Anything at all? Nope. Food's provided, shelther provided. And never in any of my days have I gone without that, so dispute that? There is this lovely science called math. An statistics, and probability. If everyday for years I consistently am cared for and looked out for and content, most times through no fault of my own, without ever wanting for something I truly NEEDED, then that would about fulfill promises God gave to me. Statistically speaking, that's a staggering chain of coincedence, made even more unlikely when you throw probability into the mix. Just as improbable as the perfect conditions to birth a solar system. What the hell are you talking about...you are lucky to have food and shelter. There are people who don't have these things, and they fucking die because of it. And despite this improbability of stellar and planetary systems (solar refers to our sun specifically), somehow there are hundreds of planets outside of our system that we have observed, and statistically it would be safe to assume that there are millions in our galaxy. Ultimately you'll believe what you want. I'm just saying your disbelief in God doesn't make him/her any less real. Just like your disbelief in bigfoot doesn't make him / her any less real. Obviously my belief doesn't change reality. And I must repeat myself - without evidence you must -withhold- judgement. That means you don't believe one way or the other. That's how I feel about God - I don't really have any evidence, so I can't say. Maybe it's true, maybe not, I don't know. My intuition would say it's not true but I have very little to base that on. Bigfoot is a little different, since the description isn't of something that would be hard to find. Omnipotent being that created the universe, that might be hard to find. But a regular old Earth animal...not as hard to find. Does it live in some extreme environment like a volcano? Nope, it just roams around the woods and we still can't find it! | |
Magicsofa wrote:
Anyway, I don't really care if God feels rejected. Seems pretty immature for a supreme being. Then again, this is the same guy who told Abraham to kill his son JUST FOR FUNSIES LOL Lol'd. | |
Magicsofa wrote:
without evidence you must -withhold- judgement. That means you don't believe one way or the other. Not necessarily. Without evidence, you must withhold assertion if you want to call yourself an empiricist. However, one may still judge without having definite evidence. A strong hunch is the basis of most scientific inquiry. Empiricism is not the only means of thought. For instance, empiricism does not work with moral philosophy, as such, we cannot empirically determine the benefit of an action in order to reach moral conclusions. This is simply because certain methods of human though defy logical investigation. We are not logical creatures first. We were single celled organisms, then simple sea-bound organisms, then fish, then reptiles, eventually mammals, then primates, and eventually human beings. Our logical capacity is almost an afterthought in our evolutionary history. As such, the majority of our behaviors and feelings are the product of instinct and governed by naturally selecting pressures of the environment --an environment that is known for hostility and indifference to suffering. The difficulty with applying the empirical method of investigating everything, is that at some level, all knowledge breaks down. Empiricism only works when one examines the universe as a model, and as such, empiricism and the investigation of the natural universe is based on a series of assumptions without empirical basis. If one cannot determine even if the self does indeed exist without the assumption of "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am" - Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, 1644), all of our investigation of reality by the vehicle of the thinking self is thereby based upon the conjecture that the self is a real thing residing in a meaningful and consistent locality. We have no reason to believe that we exist, but in order to construct empiricism, it is recognized that the universe that has no thinking beings cannot be comprehended. As such, in order to attempt to comprehend our universe, we must base our model of the universe we attempt to study, on yet another further assumption: That the meaning and properties of the universe can be ascertained by the self through investigation and observation. Yet again, we go to a third assumption: That our observations have the ability to be reliable and consistent, as such our universe must thereby be based on consistent and reliable phenomena. (We have some evidence of this being true and false at the exact same instant.) So we have three assumptions, which construct the groundwork for empiricism. So let's apply these rules to moral philosophy: 1) The conditions dictate the correct outcome for a deciding being's actions. 2) The outcome, good or bad can be determined by direct observation. 3) In order to determine the beneficial or harmful nature of actions, one can examine their effects on a group in order to ascertain the rightness or wrongness of an action. 4) We can assume that an action being taken or not being taken can show a net benefit or detriment in the perceived prosperity of said group. 5) Prosperity can be judged in measurable, material things, such as population, availability of resources, or immaterial things, such as surveyable happiness, or perception of group cohesion. Let's apply these simple 5 empirical rules to a moral act: Note that we have defined benefit as a material and measurable outcome, as well as by proxy, detriment. Note that we have also determined that the correct action is determined by logically assaulting the cause of detrimental factors to group cohesion, or resource availability. So, let's look at overpopulation. If a group is overpopulated, there are two actions we will examine (There may be many, many more): Do nothing, and allow population to increase, as well as cull some of the herd in order to ensure the prosperity of those remaining. As such, the opinions and happiness of those culled are no longer meaningful, as they can no longer be measured in a material or surveyable way. The happiness of the entire group, as resources become scarcer as well as the increase in competition and in some cases, transgressions against other members in the group in order for some members to ensure survival threatens the distribution of resources further, as well as group cohesion. So we have two outcomes. Emotionally, we would assume that preserving the sanctity of life would be the more moral action than letting nature take its course. Instead, we find that that the material outcome of these two situations could very much be said to be debatable. We find that despite measurable and defined terms, in some situations, two actions cannot be compared in order to acheive the more moral action. We still rely on illogical thinking (gut emotions, and the aversion to mass-murder) to claim that culling the herd of our own members is wrong, while we have very few problems making this decision when it is another species. Meanwhile, we also recognize our own ability to choose our outcome, and simply letting ourselves slip back into naturalistic selection seems quite problematic. Can we truly argue then, that all ideas that are useful must be based on empiricism, if empiricism fails to answer daily questions with sufficient basis for a unified code of ethics? (Mind you, I'm not advocating the necessity for scripture to determine morality. I find that there is no single scripture that provides what I would consider to be a moral code that is adequate, and the most popular, the ones outlined in the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran are completely and utterly monstrous, justifying genocide, rape, mutilation, slavery and torture --actions that any enlightened society should reject rather than revel in. Merely that there is room for debate in the manner of reality and ethics.) I will, however, argue, that the concept of a personal deity is almost certainly self-refuting, as such it is quite simple and rational to empirically reject such belief structures outright until they provide not only revision that corrects logical contradiction, but significant and extreme evidence that supports their conclusion, and their conclusion alone. Some guy being born roughly two thousand years ago to a woman claiming to be a virgin isn't enough. Nor is said person riding into a particular gate on a particular mount enough. Nor is feeding thousands from a single loaf of bread, nor is being resurrected from the dead. Even if such a figure did all of these things, and we KNEW that they were all done, they would not justify the existence of any gods any more than they would justify the existence of aliens, 9/11 government involvement, bigfoot, or unicorns. | |
Ter13 wrote:
we cannot empirically determine the benefit of an action in order to reach moral conclusions. I don't think there is much difference between our capacity to think about logic in an abstract way, and our capacity to feel emotions and react based on them. Both are ways of receiving, processing, and reacting to stimuli. Of course one is a high level function, and unique to humans, but that function in the brain developed in the same evolutionary way that instinct did. The difficulty with applying the empirical method of investigating everything, is that at some level, all knowledge breaks down. Sure...unless you know everything, there will be things you don't know. Some things we probably can't find out. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find things out using the scientific method. If one cannot determine even if the self does indeed exist without the assumption of "Cogito ergo sum", all of our investigation of reality by the vehicle of the thinking self is thereby based upon the conjecture that the self is a real thing residing in a meaningful and consistent locality. We have no reason to believe that we exist, but in order to construct empiricism, it is recognized that the universe that has no thinking beings cannot be comprehended. Are you playing devil's advocate here? This is one of those realms that philosophers just piss me off in general, and ruin everything (by everything I mean philosophy classes, which is the only thing philosophers do :P). Fine, we might all be brains in vats. Does it matter? Not at all. It's a fantasy, and like many others it isn't really worth looking into until we have some kind of reason to believe it is true. Furthermore, at the very least our perceptions DO exist. Even if they are somehow false representations, they cannot be non-existent. So yeah, I think therefore I am. Thinking. As such, in order to attempt to comprehend our universe, we must base our model of the universe we attempt to study, on yet another further assumption: That the meaning and properties of the universe can be ascertained by the self through investigation and observation. No, it is the only way to gain knowledge. our universe must thereby be based on consistent and reliable phenomena. (We have some evidence of this being true and false at the exact same instant.) Just because we fail to observe something doesn't mean it defies logic. What phenomena are you thinking of that are not consistently observed? If a group is overpopulated, there are two actions we will examine (There may be many, many more): Do nothing, and allow population to increase, as well as cull some of the herd in order to ensure the prosperity of those remaining. We still rely on illogical thinking (gut emotions, and the aversion to mass-murder) to claim that culling the herd of our own members is wrong, while we have very few problems making this decision when it is another species. I see our not wanting to kill each other as a defense mechanism. It's an evolutionary trait, it has helped our survival and success as a species. It could totally fail however - just like other animals that will not take action to reduce their own numbers, we are susceptible to overpopulation and thus decline of our species. Since survival is our one motive, culling the herd is indeed the moral choice if the entire species would be wiped out otherwise. It would definitely result in a conflict, where everyone makes the same moral choice (I want to live, so others have to die) and then fights it out. That's life on Earth, and the fight for survival is the main driver of evolution. Morals come from the desire to survive, and specifically to survive together. There are cases of animals (including humans) killing off the weakest member, though, or controlling their own population indirectly. Can we truly argue then, that all ideas that are useful must be based on empiricism, if empiricism fails to answer daily questions with sufficient basis for a unified code of ethics? How did humans' code of ethics come from anywhere but sensory evidence? When people die it makes us feel badly, that emotion is a form of evidence. We know that it makes us feel sad, maybe we don't know why but it is a reason to create a moral code that denounces killing each other. Perhaps that moral code could get us into trouble. Similarly, people used to think the earth was flat and they were wrong. Our observations can be misleading. Gut feelings can get you into trouble, but they are not illogical. They are an evolutionary trait, and they make a lot of sense - we are scared of things that might kill us, hungry for food, we desire a mate. Whether these things are instinct or learned, I don't know - probably both. I will, however, argue, that the concept of a personal deity is almost certainly self-refuting Even if such a figure did all of these things, and we KNEW that they were all done, they would not justify the existence of any gods any more than they would justify the existence of aliens, 9/11 government involvement, bigfoot, or unicorns. Well, if a god is defined as someone who can perform certain actions like turn water into wine, and then you observe someone doing that, you do have evidence for that god. It's just that the bible is a bunch of crap! | |
Wait wait wait. I've been out in the woods for a bit. Are you saying that she's claiming contamination? The Dr. Ketchum, who is trying to make a quick buck, admits that this sample was bunk? Why would she cut her own throat, if it is true that she's just hoaxing this all?
So she claims.
So she claims. But then, if science is really plastic, contradictions should be welcomed.
You said hard. huh huh huh