tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6034975910260408033..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Emperor's New Clothes and the Courtier's ReplyLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88820814414261064252010-05-21T03:45:59.148-04:002010-05-21T03:45:59.148-04:00thanks for sharethanks for sharezainuddinhttp://ps-tsi.gunadarma.ac.id/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35533404069938653872008-11-30T18:07:00.000-05:002008-11-30T18:07:00.000-05:00anonymous asks,I just stumbled into this very live...anonymous asks,<BR/><BR/><I>I just stumbled into this very lively debate, but I find myself very confused. Consider me that little kid with no knowledge beyond what my senses tell me. My first response: why does it matter? I am not entirely sure what arguing the existence of God does for science.</I><BR/><BR/>The debate is over the conflict between rationalism and superstition. Is is better to be rational or is it better to believe in superstitions that have no evidence to support them? <BR/><BR/>I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases you opt for rationalism and reject superstitions as nonsense. I'm sure that when asked you think that being rational is better that believing in a bunch of nonsense, Right?<BR/><BR/>Why do you make an exception for religion—more specifically for the particular religion that you believe in? (You probably think that all the others are just superstitious nonsense.)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28491963836958116822008-11-30T03:13:00.000-05:002008-11-30T03:13:00.000-05:00I just stumbled into this very lively debate, but ...I just stumbled into this very lively debate, but I find myself very confused. Consider me that little kid with no knowledge beyond what my senses tell me. My first response: why does it matter? I am not entirely sure what arguing the existence of God does for science. The existence (or non-existence) of God doesn't really hamper science does it? As a believer, I have never seen the problem in believing in God and in science. So when I saw an article based on the fable the Emperor's Clothes, I thought it very ironic. The fable is about perception and what people will pretend to make others perceive them a certain way. And frankly, I feel that most debaters on the subject are debating a matter of perception, and are debating so that they will not be perceived wrong. I think the argument about God has jumped the gun. Perhaps science should, if it can, argue first about perception which is very close to belief, before it argues about what people perceive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20477009586607072832008-08-18T08:44:00.000-04:002008-08-18T08:44:00.000-04:00Larry. This post at Unscrewing the Unscrutable may...Larry. This post at Unscrewing the Unscrutable may help provide context for J.L. Hinman's little outburst. If it is any consolation, he posted in PZ's original thread too... :-)<BR/><BR/>http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/2009Radix2https://www.blogger.com/profile/07364349718724488037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88799305031324248982008-08-16T18:38:00.000-04:002008-08-16T18:38:00.000-04:00Courtier's reply is nothing more than ipsie dixit....Courtier's reply is nothing more than ipsie dixit. you are just stipulating "Your knowledge shall be negated. you know thing because I say what you know is not worth crap." <BR/><BR/>It's obvious why you have to know about something to criticize it. Here's an example. this happened the other day. An atheist says "religions is tupid because it's worshpping a big daddy in the sky." I say "process theology doesn't see a big sky daddy, it sees God as impersonal." he says "No it doesn't." I quote about 20 articles showing it does posit an impersonal God and he says "that's the courtiers reply." He's treating it like a law of logic or something.<BR/><BR/>It's no a law a of logic. It's not an informal fallacy, it's a gimmick. Its not something a logician will agree to it's actually anti-logic because logic tell us we should know about the things we criticize.<BR/><BR/>This is the Jews and Nazis. They are demanding that the knowledge I have worked a lifetime to achieve is just dung in my head and they don't even wnat to work for the privilege of saying it. they want to stipulate it without even knowing what it is they are comdeming to the ash heap.<BR/><BR/>I paid a dear price for the knowledge worked to earn. I have sacrificed and worked hard to learn what I have from theology. I will be mother fucking damned to hell if I let some know nothing anti-intellectual fart head take it away by just merely refusing acknowledge that it's worth anything! <BR/><BR/>All my life I have fought the nay sayers! those who would not allow me to know, those who would not allow the intellectuals to exist. those who would burn the books, I have been fighting since I was a small child. at church, at school, growing up in Texas I will not allow a bunch of fascists to make my knowledge away form me just because they have little scientific bull shit gimmick along with their fascism!Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41193504721820598222008-08-16T18:10:00.000-04:002008-08-16T18:10:00.000-04:00you are promoting the work of anti-intellectual Na...you are promoting the work of anti-intellectual Nazis. why don't you just burn some books? That stupid gimmick is nothing but a refusal to grant digintiyt to people who see things differntly than you do.<BR/><BR/>religion is not superstition. you are a fool. you don't know anything about it. if you want to make up a little label that sys "I will not grant your knowledge any importance" find. I don't grant your knowledge importance.<BR/><BR/>I can make up a little fancy label for your fascist move of anti-freedom clap trap. I'll call it the brown shirt move. that's an informal fallacy where you erfuse to accept that people who see things differently than you do can know anything.<BR/><BR/>you are making the brown shirt move got it! You lose.<BR/><BR/>you are an anti-intellectual book burner you refuses to accord me the validity my knowledge base deserves. how can you criticism something you know nothing about? that's just plain stupid. you don't deserve to be in the academy. you are a lousy scholar and an anti-scholar. you are anti-knowledge.<BR/><BR/>burn some bibles and toast morshellows and burn a few Methodosts at the stake too.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26479577638842821022007-05-15T13:27:00.000-04:002007-05-15T13:27:00.000-04:00It is the gleam of that physicalist premise that ...It is the gleam of that physicalist premise that has spawned so much bad scientism.<BR/><BR/>Systems theory is perhaps the best reason why physics alone is insufficient. Systems theory is fundamentally different from physics and you will get NOWHERE without it. <BR/><BR/>Physics is like the bricks of the house: thanks to them there is a house in the first place, but the organization, the architecture of that house is not contained in the bricks. arrangement of parts is not a part of physics... at least not our physics, to this day. <BR/><BR/>Organisms are made possible by physics and comply with physics but it is their dynamic organization, as a molecular network of interactions, that makes them what they are. An d this can be tackled by systems theory, not by physics. <BR/><BR/>If this fails to convince you I will not insist, but I don't blame you. There is not much awareness about the true importance of systems theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88165275283899162992007-05-15T13:06:00.000-04:002007-05-15T13:06:00.000-04:00You still haven't convinced me. Like I said, if on...You still haven't convinced me. Like I said, if one had enough information and computing power, could not one predict the occurrence of life and its corollary laws as arising from physical interactions of matter and energy? That is, the science of biology arises very very fundamentally from the science of physics?<BR/><BR/>I'll accept it's a silly premise, but I think I'm still right.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590604089043425452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70248481999936725812007-05-15T12:06:00.000-04:002007-05-15T12:06:00.000-04:00Reality is not contained or carbon-copied in a sma...Reality is not contained or carbon-copied in a smaller domain of itself labeled "physics". <BR/>Physics is limited by its predominantly reductionist framework which works beautifully in terms of particles, space, waves, energy... but physics does not seem to predict any such thing as the occurrence of life or the evolution of a lineage. All we can say is that the laws of physics are complied with in these processes, but the organisms are not predicted by them. <BR/><BR/>Physics for example has only recently begun to talk about emergent properties. They are currently incapable of predicting-explaining on their own most of chemistry. I remember about a decade ago, this physicist friend of mine is all happy, because physicists had published a paper proving that hidrogen is allowed by physics, that it can exist. Of course chemists were laughing their heads off, but he was happy. That gets you an idea of how far away is physics from achieving an adequate framework for studying complex historical phenomena, like the evolution of life on earth. <BR/>I understand there has been some more discussion lately, from the nanothechnological side? about emergent porperties and such. Hopefully this may lead to better, non-reductionist physics that may merge with greater ease into the independent fields of chemistry and biology. Things still would not be "a matter of physics" though. We would just overlap physical explanations on phenomena whose comprehension is handled best in other fields.<BR/><BR/>For example, for those of us who think the universe is not on a predetermined pathway, chance events make the history of life unique, and thus not replicable according to a physicalist model. <BR/>You HAVE to study fosssils, you have to look to how the actual thing went on...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59338455966175994652007-05-14T23:46:00.000-04:002007-05-14T23:46:00.000-04:00To alipio:I was more interested in why biology was...To alipio:<BR/>I was more interested in why biology was the "lesser" in scientism, but I'll bite on the physics. Couldn't everything be explained by physics given enough information and computing power? Practically, I understand it's not doable, but the principle is sound, no?Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590604089043425452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23312187939986809212007-05-14T19:14:00.000-04:002007-05-14T19:14:00.000-04:00Just to illustrate Pz's floppy logics:"We also don...Just to illustrate Pz's floppy logics:<BR/><BR/>"We also don't make the logical error that you do, that because we disagree with him on one (or a few) things, that he is incapable of reason"<BR/><BR/>I never made that logical error. I know dawkins can use reason; but it happens I know perfectly well he can fail to use it, too. The fact he can say smart things does not take away that he can say perfectly silly things, too. <BR/><BR/>My real point is that if you are going to make it you occupation to go out there and tell others to "use reason", make sure that the claims you make about your own scientific field are reasonable. <BR/><BR/>I never tell anyone to "use reason", nor do I stop now and then between my research or aguments to shout "HEY, lookit me, I'm using reason!!!" Reason, you just use it. You can proclaim reason and not be using reason at all. This is why "rationalism" is essentially useless and frivolous. <BR/><BR/>If you take "rationalims" to be a fundamental truth (not just an ideology), you have converged with a crow that includes atheists, but also fascists, creationists; even raelians and scientology can praise reason and science. But the content of "rational" conclusions is very different indeed, becuase saying we must use reason does not say HOW we must use reason. It is as vacuos as talking about evidence without saying what evidence: no thought process is involved. <BR/><BR/>I think this is the reason why larry and PZ can agree on dawkisn on "rationalism", yet disagree in how that reason is applied to understanding evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29319460623385395012007-05-14T17:08:00.000-04:002007-05-14T17:08:00.000-04:00"The question here is why taking the popular versi..."The question here is why taking the popular version of some proposition and asserting that a refutation of that (assuming that is what you really have) is enough to say "we do know" about all possible versions."<BR/><BR/>I haven't read Dawkins, but I assume he doesn't debunk philosophical gods, but interventionist ones. Why would theologists otherwise wish for him to discuss their more safe-guarded concepts?Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02022193326058378221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8005893716945057042007-05-14T16:15:00.000-04:002007-05-14T16:15:00.000-04:00darwins? I meant dawkinsdarwins? I meant dawkinsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79074483971003239862007-05-14T16:14:00.000-04:002007-05-14T16:14:00.000-04:00Biology cannot be ported into physics, but you wou...Biology cannot be ported into physics, but you would be surprised at the amount of people thinking that it must break down biological phenomena to terms of basically chemo-physical explanations. This is why the record of simplistically false reductionist hypotheses in biology seems endless.<BR/>Scientism has always been physicalist, and if you want an example, it's precisely the reductionist aspects of Darwins philosophy I discussed above. Because science seems closer to chemistry and physics at the molecular level, dawkins wants all the action to be about these self-replicating molecules, the selfish genes. Sounds very sciencey, huh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85359520621727476662007-05-14T14:39:00.000-04:002007-05-14T14:39:00.000-04:00In scientism, bIology is the "lesser" compared to ...<I>In scientism, bIology is the "lesser" compared to chemistry and physics. An of course the humanities just don't exist, much less philosophy.<BR/>All explanations are fulfilled when they ultimately arrive to the port of physics.</I><BR/><BR/>Please explain, I find your assertion interesting. I for one do not understand how biology can be ported into physics. Maybe I'm not knowledgeable enough, I humbly add.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590604089043425452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83097852630924708012007-05-14T12:59:00.000-04:002007-05-14T12:59:00.000-04:00Those are your examples of questions that are inac...<I>Those are your examples of questions that are inaccessible to science? I guess neurobiologists and cosmologists just twiddle their thumbs all day long, then?</I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. I applaud their efforts.<BR/><BR/><I>If and when any of your questions are answered, do you think the answer is likely to come from:<BR/>a) science,<BR/>b) philosophy,<BR/>c) religion?</I><BR/><BR/>I think at least of few of them may be unanswerable, and yet are still meaningful - that's my point. If any of them are answerable, science will certainly do it. Philosophy is better at defining questions than answering them. Religion (IMO) doesn't answer any questions.<BR/><BR/><I>What makes you think that any of your questions are "innacessable to science?"</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know if they are all inaccessible to science or not. They certainly aren't yet. Some of them may be partially answerable eventually (consciousness).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88799758811409991542007-05-14T10:35:00.000-04:002007-05-14T10:35:00.000-04:00Another thing: if tomorrow the entire community of...Another thing: if tomorrow the entire community of physics shifted to saying the earth is 10000 years old, what we would have is two communities in disagreement, not the meek capitulation of biology crushed under the foot of physics. And fortunately so, since physics aready screwed up once exactly that way with Lord Kelvin himself, yet evolutionists stuck to their position.<BR/><BR/>This pertaines to the problem of identifying the central concept as Pieret has pointed ut. To someone who believes in scientism, the truths delivered by physics are the starting point and biology the elaboration. Where physics has spoken biology has no voice. <BR/>In scientism, bIology is the "lesser" compared to chemistry and physics. An of course the humanities just don't exist, much less philosophy.<BR/>All explanations are fulfilled when they ultimately arrive to the port of physics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81981164787903570702007-05-14T09:57:00.000-04:002007-05-14T09:57:00.000-04:00Science can certainly approach several of those to...Science can certainly approach several of those topics, if it is creative aware of its philosophical foundations and the general importance of philosophy. <BR/>NEVER through people of a scientism that scorns philosophy, that sees science as skepticism and denial, not creativity.Nucleo Deceniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01966542558503652729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16227542913211855352007-05-13T20:46:00.000-04:002007-05-13T20:46:00.000-04:00anonymous,What makes you think that any of your qu...anonymous,<BR/><BR/>What makes you think that any of your questions are "innacessable to science?" More specifically, what test did you apply to conclude that any of them are "innacessable to science?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45572694128655293602007-05-13T19:22:00.000-04:002007-05-13T19:22:00.000-04:00Those are your examples of questions that are inac...<I>Those</I> are your examples of questions that are inaccessible to science? I guess neurobiologists and cosmologists just twiddle their thumbs all day long, then?<BR/><BR/>If and when any of your questions are answered, do you think the answer is likely to come from:<BR/>a) science,<BR/>b) philosophy,<BR/>c) religion?Tuulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139693087141113292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68517406399997606012007-05-13T18:09:00.000-04:002007-05-13T18:09:00.000-04:00Well, has any fruit been born by their challenges?...<I>Well, has any fruit been born by their challenges?</I><BR/><BR/>If you're a pragmatist, probably not. But scientists are also truth seekers, are they not? Not everything they research has a practical use. <BR/><BR/><I>Have they ever proven science wrong?</I><BR/><BR/>No. And that's not really the issue for me. The issue is whether or not they define a domain in reality that is (at least currently) inaccessible to science. <BR/><BR/><I>Talk is cheap, what challenges with science have they won to deserve such attention and consideration?</I><BR/><BR/>Again, that's pragmatist viewpoint. And it's also true that you don't know what can be done (pragmatically) with knowledge that you don't have.<BR/><BR/>Here are few examples of such questions that I can write down off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more. I'd be most grateful if Dawkins could answer them for me. I structured them as a quiz. You have 20 minutes. No cheating, or praying to any dieties is permitted :)<BR/><BR/>Physics-related:<BR/><BR/>1. What is the nature of time? (fundamental to everything, including evolution and consciousness). Time is divided into the past and future, via "now" (a very common word). If reality is objective, define the meaning of "now" without referencing your own consciousness. <BR/><BR/>2. Is the universe completely consistent? If so, why is it consistent? (science may not work well in an inconsistent universe).<BR/><BR/>3. If reductionism works, what does everything ultimately depend on? QM? What does that depend on? How far down the rabbithole does physics go? <BR/><BR/><BR/>Philosophical:<BR/><BR/>4. What is Being? Existence? Reality? Does it require consciousness? (can anything exist if you don't?)<BR/><BR/>5. What is the ultimate nature of reality? Does it even have an ultimate nature, and is it possible to know it? Is this a dream or a simulation? (In a dream, there is also an objective reality but it disintegrates upon waking, and you realize that it was all part of yourself - and your consciousness survives the transition).<BR/><BR/>6. Why should there be consciousness, this peculiar personal awareness we have? Why aren't we philosophical zombies? (to me, this is nearly the same question as: Why is there something rather than nothing).<BR/><BR/>7. Is reality subjective or objective? Or both to varying degrees? How do you know?<BR/><BR/>8. Assuming that solipsism is false, why are you you, and not someone or something else? (an old childhood question).<BR/><BR/>9. What is consciousness? Is it strictly physical? Or Logical? (information) Or Both? Or neither? How do you know? Can consciousness understand itself?<BR/><BR/>10. Is reality completely deterministic? Is consciousness deterministic? (i.e, is there free will?) <BR/><BR/>11. What happens after you die? Is death really an escape? You were dead before you were born, but that didn't stop you from coming into existence. Non-existence was apparently not an option. Will it happen again?<BR/><BR/>12. Scientists are truth-seekers. What is truth? (Pilot's quantum question).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71387360164611599772007-05-13T13:37:00.000-04:002007-05-13T13:37:00.000-04:00Anonymous: "The deep existential questions. None o...Anonymous: "The deep existential questions. None of them are direct arguments for God, but they do challenge the supremacy of science."<BR/><BR/>Well, has any fruit been born by their challenges? Have they ever proven science wrong? Talk is cheap, what challenges with science have they won to deserve such attention and consideration?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33388409657474007572007-05-13T12:54:00.000-04:002007-05-13T12:54:00.000-04:00PZ said: That's the message of the Courtier's Repl...<I>PZ said: That's the message of the Courtier's Reply. Trotting out obscure theology is irrelevant to the argument. </I><BR/><BR/>Or perhaps you're just too lazy to sift through it all? (I must confess, I am too). You're equating theology with astrology, and for the most part, I think you're right. However, it's the gray area on the border of theology and philosophy that concerns me. The deep existential questions. None of them are direct arguments for God, but they do challenge the supremacy of science.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins dodges existential questions by suggesting that they are improper to ask - (they may be grammatically correct, but are meaningless and do not deserve a response). Whether or not he sincerely believes that, or just wants to avoid discussing them, I don't know. Perhaps it's just intellectual laziness. Or perhaps Dawkins may be somewhat of a philosophical zombie (not fully conscious), and such questions are truly meaningless to him. But to bury your head in the sand and simply ignore them, will not make them go away. They will continue to be asked by atheists and theists alike, as they have been through the ages, precisely because they are indeed profoundly meaningful and mysterious to those who ask them. Asking them does not make you a theist or an idiot. It just makes you curious, and is proof that you're a sentient being.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5964559195243594042007-05-13T12:13:00.000-04:002007-05-13T12:13:00.000-04:00Of course you CAN prove a negative, if your object...Of course you CAN prove a negative, if your object of enquiry is scientific, that is referring to concrete conditions and natural concepts. <BR/>But when the concept dealt with is non-scientific, such as the supernatural god, "there is no god" is no more a scientific hypothesis than saying there IS a god.<BR/><BR/>This"can't prove a negative" is no uncontroversial statement (as any good philosopher knows). If Larry says it us up to religion to prove scientifically that god exists, as if god could be proven to him by means of evidence, then it is up to him to be very clear about what would that evidence be. <BR/>And according to PZ's argument, that evidence should pertain to a clear specific core prediction, and not about the elaborations. <BR/>Alas, he failed to give us that evidence. <BR/><BR/>"Empiricism" without theoretical rootings is meaningless. WHAT is evidence is an inescapable question. "Can't prove a negative" is not only debatable, but it does not provide free pass not to declare anything about WHAT the evidence must be; specially if you want any connection to the real world, where every now and then someone DOES churn out "scientific evidence" that god exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58285829729517352232007-05-13T10:49:00.000-04:002007-05-13T10:49:00.000-04:00Dawkins answers his critic directly:How dare you c...Dawkins answers his critic directly:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece" REL="nofollow">How dare you call me a fundamentalist</A><BR/><I> Richard Dawkins<BR/><BR/>The hardback God Delusion was hailed as the surprise bestseller of 2006. While it was warmly received by most of the 1,000-plus individuals who volunteered personal reviews to Amazon, paid print reviewers gave less uniform approval. Cynics might invoke unimaginative literary editors: it has “God” in the title, so send it to a known faith-head. That would be too cynical, however. Several critics began with the ominous phrase, “I’m an atheist, BUT . . .” So here is my brief rebuttal to criticisms originating from this “belief in belief” school.<BR/>...</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com