TR Forums

"Science works" is not a falsifiable statement.

You know what, guys? You would give palm readers a headache. Can we get back to me trying to decipher the person's personality from date of birth?

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

You know what, guys? You would give palm readers a headache. Can we get back to me trying to decipher the person's personality from date of birth?

You can not figure out anyone's personality by their DOB at all. Seriously are you one those gullible folks who believes everything they hear and read? What convinced you that this is True in the first place?

Waco wrote:

Vrock wrote:

Waco wrote:

Example: I believe that God is a giant sentient donut on the other side of the sun. Prove me wrong.

Not a great example; that's actually quite falsifiable. You sure you're a real scientist?

I was giving him the option to say that we should go observe it to prove me right or wrong...then lead him to the conclusion that you can't really do that with Astrology.

But nevermind.

Ah. I should have known.

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

You know what, guys? You would give palm readers a headache. Can we get back to me trying to decipher the person's personality from date of birth?

Well thank goodness I would never go to a palm reader in the first place. Problem solved!

just brew it! wrote:

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

You know what, guys? You would give palm readers a headache. Can we get back to me trying to decipher the person's personality from date of birth?

Well thank goodness I would never go to a palm reader in the first place. Problem solved!

Well if I wanted to get them upset...

I strongly recommend reading the Pragmatists like William James to understand the difference between scientific fact and faith (while respecting both).

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I strongly recommend reading the Pragmatists like William James to understand the difference between scientific fact and faith (while respecting both).

Why does Faith deserve respect?

whm1974 wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I strongly recommend reading the Pragmatists like William James to understand the difference between scientific fact and faith (while respecting both).

Why does Faith deserve respect?

Why doesn't it?

Vrock wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I strongly recommend reading the Pragmatists like William James to understand the difference between scientific fact and faith (while respecting both).

Why does Faith deserve respect?

Why doesn't it?

That is not a answer. But a mere assertion.

whm1974 wrote:

Vrock wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

Why does Faith deserve respect?

Why doesn't it?

That is not a answer. But a mere assertion.

Why does human life deserve respect?

Vrock wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

Vrock wrote:

Why doesn't it?

That is not a answer. But a mere assertion.

Why does human life deserve respect?

That is totally different question that nothing to do with what I asked.

whm1974 wrote:

Vrock wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

That is not a answer. But a mere assertion.

Why does human life deserve respect?

That is totally different question that nothing to do with what I asked.

Answer it, if you can. Empirically.

Paraphrasing from my reading of some of some pragmatist philosophy 35 years ago...

Knowns are facts. Unknowns fall into the categories of knowable and unknowable. Knowable unknowns, once determined, become facts. The scientific method is how we determine their truth or untruth. Unknowable unknowns, however, can not become facts. Unknowable unknowns fall into the categories of important and unimportant. These are important if the truth or untruth of them would change the way that you live your life. "Is there an afterlife? Will we be eternally damned or blessed based on how we live our lives?" These are truly matters of faith.

"Does the eucharist actually become the flesh of Christ or does it just symbolically represent Christ during the sacrament?" Even if possibly unknowable, this is unimportant (because its truth or untruth has no influence on how we live our lives) and therefore it would be a stupid reason to create a schism or to start a holy war.

Here you go, bthylafh...
Professor of Stupidity

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I strongly recommend reading the Pragmatists like William James to understand the difference between scientific fact and faith (while respecting both).

JustAnEngineer wrote:

"Does the eucharist actually become the flesh of Christ or does it just symbolically represent Christ during the sacrament?" Even if possibly unknowable, this is unimportant (because its truth or untruth has no influence on how we live our lives)

That is not respecting faith.

Glorious wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I strongly recommend reading the Pragmatists like William James to understand the difference between scientific fact and faith (while respecting both).

JustAnEngineer wrote:

"Does the eucharist actually become the flesh of Christ or does it just symbolically represent Christ during the sacrament?" Even if possibly unknowable, this is unimportant (because its truth or untruth has no influence on how we live our lives)

That is not respecting faith.

Faith is nothing more then Magical Thinking. So why does it deserves respect?

Ah yes. Reflexively denigrate that which you refuse to even try to understand.

whm1974 wrote:

Faith is nothing more then Magical Thinking. So why does it deserves respect?

Incorrect. Faith is nothing more than believing in something. But the funny thing is how it changes YOU. Take your own example. You believe that you cannot be The Rock. That belief tells your mind to not even bother trying hard. Hence, your belief or faith has transformed you into what you are. A better belief or faith would make a better you. You just have to believe.

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

Faith is nothing more then Magical Thinking. So why does it deserves respect?

Incorrect. Faith is nothing more than believing in something. But the funny thing is how it changes YOU. Take your own example. You believe that you cannot be The Rock. That belief tells your mind to not even bother trying hard. Hence, your belief or faith has transformed you into what you are. A better belief or faith would make a better you. You just have to believe.

Faith goes way beyond merely believing in something. It is being absolutely certain that something is true despite the lack of evidence and in spite of the evidence against it.

whm1974 wrote:

Faith goes way beyond merely believing in something. It is being absolutely certain that something is true despite the lack of evidence and in spite of the evidence against it.

Oh, you silly little man. Not in spite of evidence against it.

whm1974 wrote:

Faith goes way beyond merely believing in something. It is being absolutely certain that something is true despite the lack of evidence and in spite of the evidence against it.

The faithful don't demand evidence. They will be rewarded precisely because they believed in something that everyone else told them not to believe. They went with their heart and gut feeling rather than hearsay. Suppose everyone says whm1974 is a bad person. But my gut feeling says that you are a good person. For that, I am rewarded with your company and friendship whereas the naysayers deprive themselves of that.

whm1974 wrote:

Faith is nothing more then Magical Thinking. So why does it deserves respect?

Maybe it doesn't, that's irrelevant to what I was getting at.

First quote is someone who supposedly respects religion, second quote definitely doesn't.

I was pointing out the incongruity.

whm1974 wrote:

Faith goes way beyond merely believing in something. It is being absolutely certain that something is true despite the lack of evidence and in spite of the evidence against it.

That's not been my experience. Your definition really just seems like a polemical and artificial construction, not something that someone on the other side explained to you.

Whm1974 is one of those Dawkins types who can't be reasoned with. He's incapable of even considering that Faith and Science can co-exist, as they are philosophies that attempt to explain different things. His caricature of the Faithful makes it quite clear that he has no interest in even trying to understand Faith, which is ironic because trying to understand things is something that SCIENCE! types should love doing.

Indeed, the logical reasoning of whm1974 is an enigma. But that is to be expected because Taureans are stubborn by nature. Even if a teensy weensy thought appears in his mind that seems to tell him something good about faith, the rest of his brain overwhelmingly crushes it. Only a life changing event may be able to open his mind.

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

Indeed, the logical reasoning of whm1974 is an enigma. But that is to be expected because Taureans are stubborn by nature. Even if a teensy weensy thought appears in his mind that seems to tell him something good about faith, the rest of his brain overwhelmingly crushes it. Only a life changing event may be able to open his mind.

Ahh, the irony of criticizing someone else's reasoning skills by using Astrology... you can't make this stuff up!

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

Indeed, the logical reasoning of whm1974 is an enigma. But that is to be expected because Taureans are stubborn by nature. Even if a teensy weensy thought appears in his mind that seems to tell him something good about faith, the rest of his brain overwhelmingly crushes it. Only a life changing event may be able to open his mind.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have strong strictures that forbid Astrological divination. They might allow the possibility and the discussion of the abstract notion that astronomical observation might in some way correlate to events on earth, perhaps even personal ones, but any attempt to ascertain one's individual fate as destined by the stars is a strict no-no. And not because, I might, they're scared that it works.

So "faith", generally, is telling you that your nonsense is nonsense. Your brain crushes it. etc...

Oh well.

Glorious wrote:

And not because, I might, they're scared that it works.

It's more about letting your fate rest in God's hands than trying to predict it. I have stayed away from the prediction part of astrology. I don't read horoscopes (they seem nonsense anyway).

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

It's more about letting your fate rest in God's hands than trying to predict it. I have stayed away from the prediction part of astrology. I don't read horoscopes (they seem nonsense anyway).

You just said that since whm1974 was born in a particular month, that means he's under the influence of a particular constellation, and then you proceeded to not only explain his behavior by it, but make predictions about his future behavior as well.

That was the previous post.

Glorious wrote:

Igor_Kavinski wrote:

It's more about letting your fate rest in God's hands than trying to predict it. I have stayed away from the prediction part of astrology. I don't read horoscopes (they seem nonsense anyway).

You just said that since whm1974 was born in a particular month, that means he's under the influence of a particular constellation, and then you proceeded to not only explain his behavior by it, but make predictions about his future behavior as well.

That was the previous post.

I didn't make any prediction. Stubborn-ness is part of his nature and like most humans, he is going to have a hard time overcoming his innate nature. Prediction would be if I said when exactly that would happen or in what manner it would happen. I'm as clueless about the future as anyone else.