Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15021 - 15040 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jun 28, 2013 - 01:26pm PT
klimmer LIVES!!!111 There must be a god!

Hi klimmer!

DMT
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 28, 2013 - 01:30pm PT
They are ALL False Prophets.

Including yourself DRF. Most assuredly you are at the top of that heap. Your closed minded one way ideology guarantees that nothing intrudes in or on that platform. Blinders superglued to your brain. Gotta love it.

You are a true Pharisee of your self-centered secular humanistic ideology at best. Nothing more.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 03:54pm PT
Mike,

I grew up a Methodist, but turned my back on organized religion around the age of 13. At that time I was able to ask many of the hard questions, and Christianity seemed OK, but I rarely saw it practiced the way it was preached. That was a huge problem with the Baptists, who ran my home town. I was a sedate Methodist, very formal and no yelling or loud praises coming from the pews.

Hell, I was saved in a Baptist church at a revival when very young. I thought it was pretty weird, and wouldn't have done it if I had known what it would be like. Many of the Baptists were huge hypocrites, and everyone knew it.

My dad is big in our old church and has attended regular bible study for decades. We have some great discussions regarding religion. I am close to many church goers, and I would never try to test their faith. Why?

I rarely go to church anymore, unless it is a funeral, but when I was in Bush Alaska, I would always go to the village church. The Quakers got in early there, but I attended Episcopal and other churches.

This way I could better understand the values of the elders. Most natives have long been converted to Christianity. Out of them all, the eskimos seem quite faithful. There life is hard, and they have no wish to go back to the old days.

You should read up on their old shamanistic religion. There were a ton of taboos, and most of them still follow the taboos to this day. The only one that has changed is that menstruating women do not have to go to the menstrual hut and hide until it is over.

It is quite strange, but I have sung familiar hymns in Inupiat and Gwich'n.

I'm not a militant atheist. My beef is with people who claim to understand the answer to everything, and there are a few of them here.

I don't think of science as a God. That is ridiculous. Science has shown me numerous examples of truth, though. Unfortunately, it fails miserably as a religion, and JL calling it "scientism" is an attempt to mischaracterize it.

Anyone want to hear how we know that the Earth has a liquid outer core? It is a one paragraph answer, and simple to understand.

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:10pm PT
Anyone want to hear how we know that the Earth has a liquid outer core? It is a one paragraph answer, and simple to understand.

Does it have to do with its effect upon the earth's magnetic field?
Or the pressure that is known to exist there?

I have another question :

Why do these super continents , like Pangea, and those before Pangea , keep breaking up and reassembling? I understand there is tectonic movement but why doesn't a state of relative stability develop in which the continents coalesce and then move around as a whole if they must move around at all?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:18pm PT
Credit: BASE104
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
and JL calling it "scientism" is an attempt to mischaracterize it.
--


I hardly coined that term. Look into it, if you want, and get yourself straight.

Scientism is not a knock on quantifying. Only someone with an all-or-nothing view of quantifying would ever consider it as much. Scientism simply is the belief that quantifying is a kind of favored-nation vehicle to truth, whereby all other vehicles are actually doing science, but without the instrumentation or symbolic abstractions (numbers, etc.) That's the blind spot for many dedicated quantifiers: not being able to imagine or appreciate that aside from quantifying, nothing else is available to human beings but "God," magic and wuwu. Quantifying is often blindly self-refferential in this regard.

An extreme, fundamntalist take on this is to assert that the discursive mind has no limits on quantifying or "knowing" reality. The only way of getting past this illusion is to start looking very carefully at how the discursive mind actually works, but from the inside, since external, objective functiong analysis yield only second-hand abstractions per the discursive. However, as has been shown many times, few on thi list are willing or even interested in doing that work, which is slow and at times tedious. Much easier (but usually way off base) to just argue the points from wherever you are and from whatever your own experience has led you to believe is "true."

In other words, scientism is NOT a knock on quantifying unless you have elevated quantifying to a kind of religio-all knowing all-powerful kind of status, whereby the process has a God-like top end, namely, none. That is, there is NO limitiation to measuring whatsoever in the pursuit of truth.

Granted, this is an extreme, if not crackpot view that few would ever cop to, but note how many balk at the idea of "limits" being applied to quantifying. Behind this, quite naturally, is the afrementioined religio cult of mind kind illusion - and we can easily see why. People want to believe in SOMETHING absolutely - God, science, quantifying, "objective reality." The list goes on. It is part of our nature.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:26pm PT
Does it have to do with its effect upon the earth's magnetic field?
Or the pressure that is known to exist there?

No. It has to do with earthquakes. There are a number of types of waves given off by earthquakes, but we can just consider pressure and shear waves.

A pressure wave is similar to sound. It is just pressure waves propagating through either a liquid, gas, or solid.

Shear waves cannot propagate through liquids or gasses. The Earth is rigged with thousands of seismometers, and they can be used to image the interior of the earth, very much like exploration geologists use seismic to look for oil and gas.

If you map the Planet for the shear wave arrivals, there is a big blind spot directly opposite the Earth from the earthquake. The shear waves can't propagate through a fluid due to the lack of shear strength, so we know that the outer core is liquid.

It is simple to define its size as well, just by studying the angles between the receiving seismometer stations and the earthquake source.

Earthquakes give off a LOT of shear waves, and they tend to do the most damage. Most people aren't aware that the entire planet is tuned in to this network. Triangulation of various stations easily tells the epicenter and depth of the Earthquake within a few minutes.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:26pm PT
How to Trim Your Angry Cats Claws!
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:28pm PT
I hardly coined that term. Look into it, if you want, and get yourself straight.

Scientism is not a knock on quantifying.

The hell you say.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:43pm PT
People want to believe in SOMETHING

Whoa, is this a dig at the Pleiadians High Council?

I'm with Dick Proenekke on this( may he RIP) in that he believed in the Alaskan Wilderness, and himself.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LP-3N_00TOk&feature=related
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jun 28, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
Take a look at the last half dozen pages of the climate change thread to see who your fellow travelers are on the use of the term scientism....

DMT
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:00pm PT
I don't understand why humans have such a need for belief, but it is nigh universal among our species.

I have one big problem of those who are delving into the human mind:

None of you take the time to do comparative anatomy of the brain on other animals. We share many similarities in structure, and can get a reasonably good handle on an animal's intelligence.

If I wanted to understand the brain and mind, that would have been one of my first pursuits. It is a big assumption to assume that we are uniquely different from other animals. Sure, there are differences, but the brain anatomy is shared all the way back to lizards.

There is a ton of information to be gleaned from the anatomy and behavior of animals. To regard ourselves as anything other than very smart mammals is short sighted.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
While some may use "scientism" in a pejorative way, this is not my intention, nor would it be anything but hypocritical for me to say as much, seeming that part of my work (as mentioned) is in breakking the mechanics of climbing and anchor systems down into practical terms and protocols, which is about as stringent a discursive drill as I can ever hope to do.

Verily, when I use "scientism," I use it as described by PBS.ORG:

Scientism

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method (discursive mind).

In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.


By any definition this is all-or-nothing thinking, known in psychology as a "thought distortion."

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:04pm PT
Take a look at the last half dozen pages of the climate change thread to see who your fellow travelers are on the use of the term scientism....

That thread is a huge waste of time. People only hear the part of the science which supports their position. This is known as cherry picking data, and is common among young scientists who don't know how to prevent falling in love with your own idea. That is rule #1 of the scientific method.

The Chief is an odd guy. He is so unpleasant that when he shows up on a thread, I leave until he leaves. I will never forget how he treated Doug Robinson over Growing Up on Half Dome. Mean guy.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:04pm PT
An extreme, fundamntalist take on this is to assert that the discursive mind has no limits on quantifying or "knowing" reality.

The " quantifiers " can hardly be faulted for thinking this way.

Thousands of years of navel gazing didn't produce a hell of a hill of beans when it comes to unravelling the mysteries of the universe.

Along comes theorists like Einstein and measurers like Eddington and !voila! We have one of the great insights into the nature of the universe, namely, Relativity.

The proof is in the rising bread.

Any scientist that gets carried away by thinking that all reality can be defined by theory and measurement has really , more than anything else , violated some style preference preferred by competing systems, like Nehru jacket navel study.
The quantifier is adjudged to wax as too overconfident, too resolute ,which is a violation of style, not of substance.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

I know only one or two scientists who act that way, and it is only about religion. As per answers, it depends on the topic. Some topics are thoroughly covered by science. Others not so much. Some not at all. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out which topics.

We are not all Richard Dawkins.

My personal hero is Ghandi. Not Einstein, although he was very bright.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:21pm PT
justifiable access to the truth.

This is a misunderstanding of the aims and methods of science.
No given scientist is concerned with the absolute truth. He/ she is concerned with getting at a localized truth, as Pasteur did with the discovery of the origins of certain diseases.

His problem: anthrax
The local truth: its caused by a germ.

There is of course the philosopher of science. Such an individual may or may not be what is here defined as a proponent of " scientism" . In that case your beef is not with science per se but with the rare eccentric philosopher who avers that science is unlimited in its potential to unravel the mysteries of the universe..
In that case , your problem with , and critique of, scientism , must include a precise definition of those regions or aspects of the universe where the limits of quantification (, and its antecedent, "theory") kick in.
We know that the so-called non-discursive proponent has defined just such a region: the subjective.
So.
We have the subjectivists who claim that their territory , so to speak, the subjective, is inherently off-limits to quantification .
So
We have objectivists who claim the subjective is merely a construct of biological functioning .
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:53pm PT
Thousands of years of navel gazing didn't produce a hell of a hill of beans when it comes to unravelling the mysteries of the universe.


Not sure what you mean by naval gazing. Were you under the impression that people doing subjective explorations were tying to "unravel the mysteries" of the physical world. If so, you have once more slipped into what I have previously mentioned, believing that everyone is actually doing science, but only the quantifiers are doing it correctly and with discipline.

If you consider the mysteries of being and existence and mind, part of the universal mysteries, you would be quite mistaken that all (again, all or nothing thinking) those naval gazers have not unraveled things that quantifying never can.

However, never having any experiencs with this realm, it is easy to see why you would take the only track open to a strictly discursive pov. If you want to see that there is more to the game, you'll have to start by examining the discursive itself, lest you keep spinning around on the same turf, repeatint the sme arguments, and making no ground and learning nothing new.

Another negative per scientism is the belief that the only investigation worth while is by way of quantifying, so forays outside the discursive are pretty much ruled out beforhand.

It would be instructive to hear what you believe is actually going on with those you refer to as "navel gazing." Given that (as had been sadi MANY times), the drill has nothign to do with attempting to do science (quantify the physical), entails no beliefs, faith, or agenda, and is focused on no particular content and is striving after no particular state, what then, do you imagine is happening? In the most specific terms.

JL
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 28, 2013 - 06:06pm PT
you would be quite mistaken that all (again, all or nothing thinking) those naval gazers have not unraveled things that quantifying never can

If the implication here is that "naval gazers" have had mind experiences that many "quantifiers" have not had, then I would probably agree. On the other hand if the implication is that these experiences relate to a more fundamental level of reality it is my opinion this is pure conjecture.

No one knows.

BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 28, 2013 - 06:08pm PT
John,

Please take a moment to explain what you are saying when you discuss the discursive mind and discursive thinking.

Thanks. We all need to be on the same page to get anywhere, and I always try to use easy language when bringing up an unfamiliar topic.
Messages 15021 - 15040 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews