Before i begin, i do hope that this thread results in a respectful debate. I wont mention any names, Freethinker.
I cant help noticing that there are two types of people on here. Let me generalise :
1) This first group of people generally tend to believe (thats right, its all beliefs) in pretty much the same kind of stuff. Most of them believe that theres no god, they believe that a "scientific method" devised by temporary humans with limited understanding and powers of observation is all they need to define existence and everything in it, they dont believe in conspiracy "theories", and they seem to believe that something can only be a fact if the person proposing the idea can fulfill their "burden of proof".
2) This second group is quite varied. Some believe in god and some dont, most believe that existence consists of things which arent always subject to the scientific method (the one subjectively devised by people), many are at least open to the idea that there may be conspiracies going on, and a big majority of them realise that the "burden of proof" lies with anybody, from any viewpoint, who is interested in looking at both sides (ranging from the "ridiculous" to the "sensible") before making up their minds.
Group 1 has the luxury of having lots of "proof" for things (which is good, and im not knocking science. I think its great, but currently very limited (mainly its own fault)), but unfortunately it leads them to believe (theres that word again) that they really do know it all(and this is reflected in their attitude), and group 2 has "experiences" and all sorts of (potentially unreliable, but not always) subjective "evidence".
Im interested to hear what anyone has to say about why we have these 2 groups.
those in group 2 wouldn't buy a gadget unless they were fairly sure it was going to work (proof, done for you by other people, but none the less important to you)
similarly most people in group 1 could tell you precisely what music is in terms of frequency ratios and sound waves but i doubt any would consider or argue that covered or explained the experience of listening to music.
'tis a rubbish and pointless speculative endeavour, this. First of all, believers-in-fairy-tales only need their 'faith', thereby cunningly absolving themselves for the need for 'proof'.
Secondly - most importantly - what makes you think there are only two such 'demographics' in this forum?
Oh yeah, I don't "believe" that evolution was the mechanism through which I obtained stereoscopic vision - I "agree" that evolution best explains the situation. If some other explanation more accurately fits the facts, then I'll most likely have no option but to agree with that - if it should happen.
If you don't "get it", try this: I don't 'believe' my mother gave birth to me, I 'know' it because I can test it.
I know that everyone has the capacity for both. Thats why i said at the start that i was generalising. But the fact is that my generalisation is fairly accurate a lot of the time, judging from peoples posts on here.
And thats what im getting at. Group 1 accuses group 2 of wanting to believe what they do, but i say that the same applies to them. As an example, group 1 tells group 2 (again, generalising) that they foolishly rely on things like intuition and hunches, which is unreliable (and i strongly agree that it can be, but that is down to the individual), but i say that group 1 relies too much on a scientific method which is based on the accuracy of the 5 senses, which are also not 100% reliable, an also subject to the individual's beliefs. I also say that intuition is a very advanced form of perception and needs to be understood.
Secular sensible, "believers in fairy tales" (presumably group 2) do need proof. But (and im sorry if this is makes you uncomfortable) not all evidence that reality leaves behind is objective, and sometimes when it is, it requires some open mindedness to actually perceive it. No doubt youll interpret this as something it isnt, but there you go. Group 2 thinking.
Originally posted by leafar: I also say that intuition is a very advanced form of perception and needs to be understood.
intuition is sometimes a very good source of information about the world. but it isn't magic. have you read malcom gladwell's book 'blink'? it describes intuition as microprocessing of information, mostly done sub or unconsciously. some tests have been done on it that indicate intuition *can* be as good a way of evaluating information as conscious thought, but far less reliably.
but no magic.
i'm afraid testable, verifiable, repeatable knowledge will always be the best resource for knowing about the world and everything in it.
people tend to 'believe' in quite ridiculous things and i for one have no intention of respecting that.
Testable, repeatable, verifiable knowledge is great. I have no problem with it. But, it is still subject to beliefs and perception. I do understand why some people want to trust it completely based on its track record. But its not the only way to see things. I think that group 1 needs to at least consider the possibility that there are also other ways to see things, which require a step outside of th comfort zone. After all, reality isnt always comfortable.
OK, leafar, I'm going to regret this, but could you please give us an example to support your claim that "not all evidence that reality leaves behind is objective"?
Or, by a clever application of your own logic, are you going to suggest that you don't need to give an example?
Originally posted by leafar: Testable, repeatable, verifiable knowledge is great. I have no problem with it. But, it is still subject to beliefs and perception.
Group 1 has the luxury of having lots of "proof" for things (which is good, and im not knocking science. I think its great, but currently very limited
"Limited"? Gee, I'm sorry but you're living in a century where robot probes routinely explore the outer solar system, telescopes see objects billions of years old and planets beyond our own backwater, we can see atoms, stop light in its tracks; we have a basic understanding of the building blocks and diversity of life, we've practically rid the world of some killer diseases and extended the life expectancy of many people who wouldn't have made it past childhood, people regularly travel all over the world safely in aircraft, we can talk to them far away down a wire, yada yada yada. And you think this is "limited"? I'm not sure whether you have unrealistic expectations or are pathologically misanthropic, but for sure, science has given us a far bigger, clearer and more picture of what and where we are than anything that preceded it.
quote:
(mainly its own fault)),
The fact is, if it admitted the sloppiness that you advocate ("evidence that isn't objective"), you'd probably have died of typhoid and the internet wouldn't exist. So you can blame whoever it is you think you're blaming for not doing whatever it was you think they didn't do, but it doesn't change the fact that a hairless ape has, in a few thousand years, performed astonishing feats.
Y'see some people just can't accept the burden that comes with critical thinking - that one's own fallibility, intrinsic biases and prejudices may cloud or even corrupt one's judgement. Science has, down the years, put processes in place to prevent this happening. And it is possible to do this at a personal level, too. Have you? I think not.
quote:
but unfortunately it leads them to believe (theres that word again)
You seem to think that Group 1s have a problem with "belief". We don't. We probably know more about the nature of belief than you do. And it's this very knowledge that helps us put in place processes which filter out the mistaken beliefs. You did realise that beliefs can be mistaken, didn't you? Then you acknowledge that some beliefs are better than others. Remember that quote from another post:
"Opinions are like a-holes. Everyone's got one but no-one really wants to look at anyone else's"
A "belief" conjured out of poor / scant evidence is an "opinion". A belief conjured out of thin air is "fiction". A belief constructed from erroneous information is false - if you like, a lie. If you're into believing lies then good for you, but I'm not.
quote:
that they really do know it all(and this is reflected in their attitude),
This, for example, is a lie. Please point to any credible scientist ANYWHERE who says they know it all. If you can't, you're a liar.
How about trying to keep it sane first, eh, Leafer?!
Learn the meanings of 'belief', 'knowledge', 'subjectivity', 'objectivity', 'sweeping', 'generalisations', 'rank', 'and' 'unnecessary' 'speculation' and get back to us
Why do you feel the need to compartmentalise individuals so? We're all different, but the same, you know?
Heselbine, examples : When people have dreams parts of which turn out to be extremely accurate, when someone meets another person for the first time and their intuition tells them something about that person, etc etc. I dont know why you asked me to give examples. Im sure you understood my claim well enough to think of plenty of examples yourself.
Intuition is not 100% reliable (and neither are the 5 conventional senses which get relied on so much by the scientific method). Those who dont trust intuition almost always want to believe (again, beliefs) that theres an alternative explanation. Fair enough, but even by their own logic, alternative explanations are just proposals, they dont actually constitute the kind of evidence that they themselves demand of others, and they amount to a belief. I believe that intuition and dreams (if trusted and dealt with properly) can be very accurate as a form of perception, and you may believe that theres an alternative explanation. But thats your belief.
-------------
ego, you can put as many robots in space as you like, but "limited" means that it has limits, limits to what it knows and can perceive. If you multiply everything you say in your first paragraph by 100, its still limited. The fact that science is expanding in its understanding all the time and always has done proves that its always limited.
If im given a bike and i have a go on it and i fall off, ive got two choices : I can say "My personal ability to ride this bike is not to be trusted. This has been proved beyond any doubt because i tried it a few times and i just cant do it. Let me put on a couple of small wheels at the back to support me in a safe position, and then ill be able to go from A to B on this bike. Bikes are not meant to be riden by their owners, and if they are, it just wont work. So ill just step back and instead of trusting myself ill just rely on a gadget", or... I can say "Let me develop my natural sense of balance and coordination, and as i improve these things which are instinctive to us all, i'll learn to ride this bike, or more accurately, i'll develop the skills to ride it which i already have. If i keep failing, i need to trust myself and try again (otherwise ill tense up and have more "proof" that it cant be done). Only by taking this approach can i see if this thing works. If i dont try i will never be in a position to speculate, and whenever i see others riding their bikes ill just assume that theres an alternative explanation. Ill never know for sure, but thats just what ill assume anyway".
That analogy was my way of saying that group 1 may say to group 2 "Youre incapable of reasonable thinking, thats why you look inside", but i say to gr.1 : You revere the 5 senses and have built a scientific method to cater to them, but youre incapable (or unwilling) to see that the other "senses" which you have require some involvement from you to master them. Seeing with the eyes is easy, and most people can do it, and it doesnt take any effort to perceive things that way. But to turn away from intuition just because its tricker is to miss out on another form of perception.
Originally posted by leafar: ego, you can put as many robots in space as you like, but "limited" means that it has limits, limits to what it knows and can perceive. If you multiply everything you say in your first paragraph by 100, its still limited. The fact that science is expanding in its understanding all the time and always has done proves that its always limited. .
of course science has limits, that is the nature of reality. if you want to remove those limits you have to dive into the realms of fantasy where anything is possible !!!! e.g. religion
ego, you can put as many robots in space as you like, but "limited" means that it has limits, limits to what it knows and can perceive.
Oh dear. Perhaps you'd like to suggest something that doesn't have limits that we can use, then?
quote:
If im given a bike and i have a go on it and i fall off, ive got two choices : I can say "My personal ability to ride this bike is not to be trusted. This has been proved beyond any doubt because i tried it a few times and i just cant do it. Let me put on a couple of small wheels at the back to support me in a safe position, and then ill be able to go from A to B on this bike. Bikes are not meant to be riden by their owners, and if they are, it just wont work. So ill just step back and instead of trusting myself ill just rely on a gadget", or...
That would be a lie, since clearly there is a lot of evidence that people can ride bikes. And that, in fact, bikes were created to be ridden. So flipping what?
quote:
That analogy was my way of saying that group 1 may say to group 2 "Youre incapable of reasonable thinking, thats why you look inside", but i say to gr.1 : You revere the 5 senses and have built a scientific method to cater to them, but youre incapable (or unwilling) to see that the other "senses" which you have require some involvement from you to master them.
What other senses?
quote:
Seeing with the eyes is easy, and most people can do it, and it doesnt take any effort to perceive things that way. But to turn away from intuition just because its tricker is to miss out on another form of perception.
Who has turned away from intuition? I defined it above. If you don't agree with the definition then provide one that's better. And then we can (perhaps) discuss its merits.
The inescapable conclusion from reading leafars posts is that he wants his opinions to be treated with the same respect as the opinions of those who have dedicated a lifetime to justifying them.
Only he doesn't want to put that kind of effort in.
There are indeed two types of people. Those who believe humanity in all its varied wonderfulness can be divided into arbitrary binary categories, and those who don't.
Originally posted by leafar: Heselbine, examples: when people have dreams parts of which turn out to be extremely accurate, when someone meets another person for the first time and their intuition tells them something about that person
In what way are these subjective? It is quite easy to look at these kinds of observations in an objective way. For example, with the dreams, to be objective you have to include the number of times that you have a dream that doesn't turn out to be accurate in some way. With meeting people, you have to consider whether your mind might be picking up all sorts of signals that haven't reached your conscious brain.
The problem with you and the other group 2s, leafar, is that as soon as anything remotely unusual happens you immediately leap to the conclusion that it must be the pixies at the bottom of the garden that are doing it. Despite the fact that over, and over, and over again, throughout human history, the remotely unusual has eventually been explained by science.
And then you have the bare-faced cheek to accuse the rest of us of not buying in to your every crazy and bizarre thought.
Ego, why would i want suggest anything? Ive just said that science, the study of reality, always has limits. Its a fact. In 10 years science will be more advanced and therefore it will have moved beyond the limits that it currently has.
I think youre taking my bike analogy a bit too literally, so im not sure you get it. Basically im saying that we all have intuition, and that some people believe that its not to be trusted, and others believe that it is, and whenever their "hunches" turn out to be accurate, the other group have another belief that it must be something else. They call it the unexplained, because they want to wait for a scientific answer, but while theyre waiting theyre not prepared to see if they already have it. Thats an example of turning away from intuition, not accepting that there must be a reason why we all have it. Other senses include : dreams, intuition, telepathy, etc, im sure i dont need to point them out to you. ----- Heselbine, youre illustrating by the things that you say that your tendancy is to want to look at things in a certain way. And can i just say that youre making assumptions about me that arent true. As far as im concerned, when something unusual happens im willing to look at everything. Just because i emphasise B on this forum it doesnt mean that i dont believe in A. Another assumption is that im accusing anyone of not buying into what i believe. I dont care what you believe, because whatever you believe and your natural thinking tendancies are a part of who you are and i dont wish to insult anyone as a person. Which is why i resent it when people do it to me on here.
If group 1 looked at group 2 with open mined curiosity (instead of "prove it, prove it, the burden of proof is on you otherwise its not true") and accepted the possibility that group 2 arent completely thick and that they may well actually know something, and if all those in group 2 didnt assume that all starnge things must have a wacky explanation and respected the science of group 1 for answers to a lot of things, both groups would benefit, and who knows, maybe science would learn a few things.
