• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Spirituality, sceptiscism and imposing your world on others

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12
Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:I've been following the Who believes in Aura's thread quite keenly.

To summarise that thread briefly a lot of people believe in auras. A lot of other people think they're deluded and/or insane. The sceptics (myself included) redface managed to roundly insult the believers and scare them off for the most part.

I don't want a repeat of that here so here there will be NO ARGUING ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT.

if people want to argue they can start another thread.

All i want to know is who here believes in what, and to what extent is it justifiable to push your world view?


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete Topic

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:they've been raised vegitarian, eating meat might be a very scarey proposition for them

taking medication for a child of fundementalists is going against God's will-how scarey is that?

(my point was that the child may choose the belief that they were raised with because that is what they are familiar with and would make mom and dad happy)

EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1166386673)


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

robnunchucks
BRONZE Member since Jul 2004

robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk

Total posts: 363
Posted:well of course children are extreamly gullable they have to be its the only way they can learn quickly enough to take in the large amount of information they need to surive. but again isn't teaching children not to take medication for example a form of abuse thats going to get them killed? raseing your children in a fasion that will harm them is surely just as bad as directly inflicting harm on them.



doesn't it come down to the question of wether parents have the right to do what ever they want to there own children. something socity has already decided they dont. i.e. sexual and physical abuse are forbiden.

EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166387099)


My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk

Total posts: 1858
Posted: Written by: faithinfire


what if there were people who were vegetarians and raised their kids as so...and the pediatrician believed the diet was detrimental to the child and wanted them to eat meat 3 times a week (fish).



In that case if the pediatrician was only saying it because if his personal belief then he should be questioned and a second opinion should be called for. If it were found that not eating meet did actually harm children then it would be sound advice that should be followed. However, this is not the case (as far as I know) so it wouldn't (shouldn't?) happen.

When you seek advice from doctors you have to assume that the advice they are giving you is based in science or personal experiences that have worked before. A doctor might suggest eating meet for a child who doesn't have a balanced diet, but in that exact case there are other options, like vitamins or just eating better vegetarian food .


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted: Written by: faithinfire



 Written by: Firetom

If I believe that my view of the world is valid for everyone, I also have to accept that others think the exact same thought (but possibly not the same content)..





no just accept, that if now they do not, that they are not ummmm enlightened enough to come round to your way of thinking



 Written by: Firetom

If I believe that it's okay to tell others what is right and wrong, I also have to accept others to tell me what is right and wrong...







no just that they have not realized that you are right and they are wrong





ubblol what are you trying to indicate? That I feel "enlightened"? That I am "right"? You seem to have missed my point so completely... rolleyes



but yes, that's okay hun. (not condecending, just: hug s) smile



[edit] but then again... *scratches head* I might not have gotten YOURS ubblol wink

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1166501983)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted: Written by: Sym


I think that every person who thinks atoms exist should click on "That there must be more to life than meets the eye". We know very well that there are things we can't see, but that doesn't stop us exploring them.



The expression "there's more to life than meets the eye" wasn't meant to be taken entirely literally. Furthermore I am well aware that some fields of scientific enquirey cannot employ repeatable experimentation, astrophysics being a clear case in point. In astrophysics you cannot set up experiments but you can monitor the "expirements" that are happening around you.

The questions are meant to capture the spirit, not the letter, of your beliefs. And yes you can vote for many things.


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk

Total posts: 1858
Posted: Written by: the boy g


And yes you can vote for many things.



No I actually can't vote - I just get shown the result as if I had voted.

My point about the 'more than meets the eye' option was one I have about more or less any poll - I would click it because we 'know' where is more than meets the eye, but I do not think there is anything super-natural about it. Because everyone should like it no matter what they think (unless they think atoms aren't real), the question is redundant.

I wouldn't want my vote to aid an argument along the lines of 'most people here think there is more that meets the eye, and I am going to assume that they were all talking about supernatural things'.

hug

It doesn't matter, because I can't vote smile


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

robnunchucks
BRONZE Member since Jul 2004

robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk

Total posts: 363
Posted:Furthermore I am well aware that some fields of scientific enquirey cannot employ repeatable experimentation, astrophysics being a clear case in point. In astrophysics you cannot set up experiments but you can monitor the "expirements" that are happening around you.



actual this does meet the repeatable experimentation requirment. the thing about repeatable experiments isn't that they can be repeated on demand. but that if you do the experiment again you get the same results.



for example if you need a supernova to occure as part of your experiment then odviouly you can't set one off at your conveniance you need to wait for one to happen. but it is still a repeatable experiment because if someone else wanted to do the same experiment they could wait for annother super nover to occure and if the results are valid they should get the same results as you.



repeatable doesn't meen repeatable on demand just that it can be done again. if this wern't true then astrophysics would be refered to as a phlosify not a science again this is true of the other fields you refrences as well all of them are baised on repeatable experiment other wise they wouldn't be called sciences

EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166445186)


My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted:"More than meets the eye" is a common colloquialism. It was intended to be interpreted as more than we can deduce through measurement and reasoning..."more than it appears" might have been better.

"More than meets the eye" is an expression and not meant to be taken literaly like "he's the black sheep of the family" wouldn't usualy be taken to mean that the family in question had a rather unusual pet.


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by: The Boy G

"More than meets the eye" is a common colloquialism. It was intended to be interpreted as more than we can deduce through measurement and reasoning..."



 Written by: robnunchucks

the thing about repeatable experiments isn't that they can be repeated on demand. but that if you do the experiment again you get the same results.



Unfortunately both these statements still fall short of understanding certain aspects of contemporary scientific knowledge. 100 years ago they would have been an accurate portrayal of scientific methodology, but occidental scientific epistemologies have advanced since then.

For example dynamical systems theory works with qualitative analysis - that is understanding probabilities of non-linear and chaotic systems based on mapping the microstructure of a system's phase portrait. Working with probability indicates the application of a methodology within scientific study within which a repeated experiment is expected to give (often wildly) different results.

The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.

Part of the reason for this is the advances in technology in the last quarter of the 20th century, whereby computer simulations became a resource increasingly employed as a tool for the generation of scientific knowledge.

For example, climate sensitivity models enable climatologists to make predictions as to the continued effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change based on simulations. While the changes seen in the world thus far can be recorded, measured and analysed, predictions for the future cannot - so simulations, which incorporate nonlinearities (feedback loops) are deployed under the banner of scientific knowledge.

Presenting outdated mechanistic and linear models of causality - whereby scientific knowledge equates certainty and repeatability - does a fine job of presenting 'mysticism' with a conclusively winning argument in this debate - ironically by referring to the decidedly un-mystical practices of contemporary scientific study.

eek


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

BansheeCat
BRONZE Member since Jul 2005

veteran
Location: lost

Total posts: 1247
Posted:damn, can we have that again , in small words, over in the aura thread?
:0

Seriously, very nicely put Sy. I love it when you so articulately support my muddled thoughts with facts and polysyllabic vocabulary and everything . Sweet!
lol
a hug


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

87wt2gxq7


87wt2gxq7

veteran
Location: Birmingham

Total posts: 1502
Posted: Written by: dream

Working with probability indicates the application of a methodology within scientific study within which a repeated experiment is expected to give (often wildly) different results.


Okay, but surely the spirit of the scientific principle is still the same, that theories have to be grounded in empirical facts. So 'subject to repeatable experiments' isn't a valid critera when dynamical systems (aka chaos theory right?) are involved, but some other form of words that gets you out of the probablistic loophole... something like 'falsifiability'?

The idea being that if it's a scientific theory it has to make predicitons which are either true or false. If true then we keep the theory for now (which is as sure as science can ever be) and if false then we reject the theory.

Isn't that what Popper was all about?

 Written by: dream

The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.

torn apart?! Like...completely? frown


 Written by: dream

Presenting outdated mechanistic and linear models of causality - whereby scientific knowledge equates certainty and repeatability - does a fine job of presenting 'mysticism' with a conclusively winning argument in this debate - ironically by referring to the decidedly un-mystical practices of contemporary scientific study.


I don't understand how the mysticophiles get their winning blow from a view of scientific determinism. Could you please explain more? Sorry if it's clear from the above paragraph and I'm just not reading it right (I'm quite jetlagged, y'see...)


Delete

Valura
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

Valura

Mumma Hen
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Total posts: 6391
Posted: Written by: dream


 Written by: The Boy G

"More than meets the eye" is a common colloquialism. It was intended to be interpreted as more than we can deduce through measurement and reasoning..."



 Written by: robnunchucks

the thing about repeatable experiments isn't that they can be repeated on demand. but that if you do the experiment again you get the same results.



Unfortunately both these statements still fall short of understanding certain aspects of contemporary scientific knowledge. 100 years ago they would have been an accurate portrayal of scientific methodology, but occidental scientific epistemologies have advanced since then.

For example dynamical systems theory works with qualitative analysis - that is understanding probabilities of non-linear and chaotic systems based on mapping the microstructure of a system's phase portrait. Working with probability indicates the application of a methodology within scientific study within which a repeated experiment is expected to give (often wildly) different results.

The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.

Part of the reason for this is the advances in technology in the last quarter of the 20th century, whereby computer simulations became a resource increasingly employed as a tool for the generation of scientific knowledge.

For example, climate sensitivity models enable climatologists to make predictions as to the continued effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change based on simulations. While the changes seen in the world thus far can be recorded, measured and analysed, predictions for the future cannot - so simulations, which incorporate nonlinearities (feedback loops) are deployed under the banner of scientific knowledge.

Presenting outdated mechanistic and linear models of causality - whereby scientific knowledge equates certainty and repeatability - does a fine job of presenting 'mysticism' with a conclusively winning argument in this debate - ironically by referring to the decidedly un-mystical practices of contemporary scientific study.

eek




Ummm.... YEAH!! WHAT DREAM SAID! ubblol ubblol ubblol ubblol ubblove


TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk

Total posts: 1858
Posted: Written by: dream


The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.




But every small part of the theory has to follow the laws that we know about in a logical way. For example, a scientist wouldn't use the idea of entropy to explain ghosts, because the logic isn't there. At it's heart, science is logic and what Popper said is still true, it's just that we are looking at much bigger things that are much more complex and we are measuring them in much more detail.

It gets to the point where you can't account for every variable so we have to include some random outcomes, if we look at each small event (in a weather system for example) then each will follow logic as you would expect.


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Mascot


Mascot

enthusiast


Total posts: 301
Posted: Written by: dream



 Written by: The Boy G

"More than meets the eye" is a common colloquialism. It was intended to be interpreted as more than we can deduce through measurement and reasoning..."





 Written by: robnunchucks

the thing about repeatable experiments isn't that they can be repeated on demand. but that if you do the experiment again you get the same results.





For example dynamical systems theory works with qualitative analysis - that is understanding probabilities of non-linear and chaotic systems based on mapping the microstructure of a system's phase portrait. Working with probability indicates the application of a methodology within scientific study within which a repeated experiment is expected to give (often wildly) different results.









I disagree. The existance of probabilities within a system does not mean that repeatability is any less important. It just means that the results you get won't be the same every time but should have the same distribution. We can still draw conclusions about the average and the variance. This distribution might even be an even distribution, so the result could be anywhere from positive to negative infinity. This would still be a result and we would have to come up with a model that could explain why the results had an even distribution.



 Written by: dream





The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.









How So? Popper is still the most influential philosopher of science and the influence of him and his disciples towers over the field. What is the alternative to using logic in science?



 Written by: dream





Part of the reason for this is the advances in technology in the last quarter of the 20th century, whereby computer simulations became a resource increasingly employed as a tool for the generation of scientific knowledge.









This is true, large scale computer simulations in fields such as climate study are often not repeated. If they were repeated with exactly the same model and exactly the same input parameters then in theory exactly the same calculations would be done and exactly the same result found. Unfortunately with a chaotic system such as the weather an infinitessimal diffrence in starting parameters will feedback to completely alter the behaviour of the entire system. This is part of the reason weather forecasts are so bad, and climate models so poor.



The experiments are still repeatable but a diffrent group using only slightly diffrent methodology (and methodology will inevitably be slightly diffrent). May get vastly diffrent results. This indicates that the system is complicated and no current model exist that can satisfactorily model the system.



In the particular example of climatology this has given ammunition to climate-change deniers (who have often funded studies that suspiciously find no evidence for human induced climate change). Yet eventually, after enough diffrent groups have run simulations a consensus emerged that humans are warming the planet. The experiments were repeated, and the results were diffrent but eventually a consistent picture emerged.



If experiments can be repeated with the same results then it lends credence to a scientific field. The more variation in the results of similar experiments, the more complex the underlying system and the longer it will take to draw definite conclusions. The fundamental process is still much the same however.



Dream claims that the scientific methodology presented by myself and Rob amoung others is outdated without offering an alternative.

EDITED_BY: the boy g (1166530100)


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

robnunchucks
BRONZE Member since Jul 2004

robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk

Total posts: 363
Posted:dream ok i think your takeing things abit literaly here but to be fair i odviously didn't express my self clearly, hence the missunderstanding so let me try and clarify abit.



when i say experimental results must be repeatable to get the same results dont meen litteraly the SAME results as in the exact same numbers come of the experiment. i meen the same expected results, for example quantom mechanics states quite firmly that you can never predict exacly what is going to happen, you can only predict the probibility of something happening. The results in this cases are a statisical distribution of what you would expect to find. in quantom mechanics these results are mind bogglingly acurate, and no experiment has ever contradicted the probibly predictions of it.



this is what i meen by repeatable experiment. the climate models you refer to are baised on chaos theory and lorenz attractors in complex systems. again because these system are complex you will get vairying results. but like quantom mechanics in chaotic systems it is pointless to make exact predictions the only valid out come is to make probiblity estimates. By running a simulation several times you can produce probibility of what is going to happen. BUT if you run the same experiment again you should get the same probiblitys again and this is what we find. for example you run the program 10 times all with slightly diffrent inputs and 6 times it rains and 4 times its sunny. you would predict a 60% chance of rain but if another group does this useing the same model they should get roughly the same outcome.



i think your under the confusion that im talking about scientific determinism let me asure you im not i've read alot about quantum mechanicas and chaos theory as well as complex systems. All of which pritty much blow scientific determinism out the water.



but my point still stands all science is baised on repeatable experiments that get the same results. i should probibly have added that a probibility distribution is still classed as a result. smile



i shall aim to be more exact in the future



as for the part about logic not been a part of science that suprises me do you have someware i could read the arguements against it.



and what do you suggest we use as an alternative to logic? as far as i can see without logic the world decends into madness without logic the following statement is valid for example.



a monkey/a set of bagpipes = 6 biggrin



also



Presenting outdated mechanistic and linear models of causality - whereby scientific knowledge equates certainty and repeatability - does a fine job of presenting 'mysticism' with a conclusively winning argument in this debate - ironically by referring to the decidedly un-mystical practices of contemporary scientific study.



can i just check this last sentence got alot of the spirtiualists excited but if i've parsed and understood it correctly. are you saying that while scientific determinism was supportive of mysticism. modern scientific methods are not? please feel free to correct me i dont thing i've quite grasped the point you were trying to make in this last paragraph

EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166533112)


My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: robnunchucks


and what do you suggest we use as an alternative to logic? as far as i can see without logic the world decends into madness without logic the following statement is valid for example.

a monkey/a set of bagpipes = 6 biggrin



Reading dream's posts clearly indicate that something other than logic is indeed used. wink (sorry)


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Bump



"Imposing your world onto others... "



Interesting point. Am I imposing myself if I (strongly) argue against or for something?



Am I imposing myself by - say smoking a cigarette in public? Or by carrying a sign on my back saying: Jesus died?



It's a tricky question, I guess.



Am I already imposing myself by posting or opening up a thread?



*Goes into pondering mode*



oops *comes back from pondering mode*



Wrong thread - this is exclusively about spirituality.. Ignore it and let it slowly sink back down into the archives of HoP.......

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1183115709)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Page: 12