Starboy

seebs, we seem to be posting past each other. I think it is because you do not understand my approach to knowledge. I will try to express it as best I can. Please be patient and ask questions if you are not clear rather than jump to conclusions.

I do not understand my surroundings in terms of "true" or "false". Yes there are many kinds of knowledge such as logic and mathematics that use it. But all of that is tautological, in other words true or false by definition. Don�t get me wrong, it is very useful, but the results are only as good as the inputs, garbage in leads to garbage out. So were do we get reliable inputs? The usual source is science. Interesting thing about science, nothing in science is "true". All scientific knowledge is tentative. Here we have this incredible human endeavor that has produced so much useful and interesting knowledge and none of it is "true". It demonstrates that it is not necessary to view things in terms of �true� or �false�. A more productive way to see things is by assessing how well they work. How well they fit the facts, how well they stand up to test. Knowledge then becomes a fluid competition of ideas that must past the test, not some rigid framework of "truth".

It is from this point of view that I evaluate religions. It then becomes not a question of whether they are "true" or "false". It is a question of how well they work. How well do they fit the facts? How well do they assist mankind? How useful are they? Are they a benefit or a danger? The past and current record of the practices of supernatural religion speaks for itself. It is time for it to be tossed onto the scrap heap of history. I could care less if it is "true" or "false".

From this point of view, I can't help but think that if there were an ethos based on some of the best ideas of supernatural religion but using a modern understanding of mankind and our surroundings, and not bound to the quaint idea of "truth", everyone would be much happier, and the world would be a much more peaceful place to live. Not binding it to "truth" would also stop this silly quibbling that takes place between religions. Any competition between ethos�s would then have to be based on which did better at creating a satisfying, peaceful and harmonious existence.

Starboy

seebs

And yet, you make decisions that depend on truth claims or falsehood claims. This is sophistry at best.

I wouldn't say that it's tautological at all. As you observe, the inputs matter, but we can come up with useful understandings. Logic and mathematics (assuming we accept them) allow us to rule out certain categories of outcomes preemptively. This is VERY useful.

Ahh, I see. We don't know yet whether or not Hiroshima was affected by the bomb, we just have a working hypothesis.

Nonsense! Science grants uncertainty; this is not the same thing as denying the concept of truth.

This is only viable for the sorts of things that are expected to have such conveniently measurable outcomes.

To use this methodology outside its field is every bit as silly as trying to explain everything that goes wrong in terms of evil spirits.

Except that, for this evaluation to correct, it *must* be false; otherwise, the evaluation is obviously wrong.

Truth continues to exist, whether or not you personally want it. Or, rather, we should be more precise: If there's no truth, then the claim that something is "useful" isn't getting you anywhere, because that might not be true either.

Either truth *does* exist, or the idea of "utility" is doomed to irrelevance.

And, as such, we end up needing to know whether things are true or not, or at least form cogent guesses.

And yet, the claim that one thing or another has "done better" is still a claim about "truth".

Your problem is that you're trying really hard to be a relativist, but you have the emotional instincts of a fundamentalist, and must actively reject claims that don't fit your worldview. It's not okay for people to say "it's working for me", because it doesn't work for you, and you can't escape the sense that your own beliefs are *the right ones*.

No matter how much you deny truth, you still work in terms of it. You can't *not* use that concept and get anywhere.

However, since you're trying to avoid it, you keep denying the committments and truth claims you make, which makes your worldview weirdly inconsistent, and not very useful.

While we're at it, note that your claim that peace and harmony should be primary goals is itself a purely arbitrary declaration of values; someone might argue that other goals are more important. Your assertion that this particular method *is* the right way to evaluate things is, once again, a claim that you have truth, and people who disagree are wrong.

Starboy

seebs, you really are stuck in a first century binary rut. You lump observation or fact, hypothesis or explanation, test and conclusion all into the same pile as if they were all the same way of knowing. Before we continue this discussion I think you need to learn more about the ways of science. It really is a very different way of thinking.

Adios

Starboy

seebs

I know lots about science - but science depends, at its core, on the assertion that the world has actual states and qualities which can be measured. No truth, no science.

As to the "first century binary rut", I don't think you've got any support for that; indeed, time and time again, you're the one advocating all-or-nothing approaches, and I'm the one arguing for middle ground.

e.g., so far as I can tell, your problem is that, if I make even a single truth claim, I am rejecting any uncertainty anywhere. Not so at all. It's only that, in accepting uncertainty, I am not rejecting *all* truth claims. They coexist just fine.

Starboy

Looks like I am going to be teaching you remedial science. The only assumption that science makes about nature or reality is that it exists. This is just an assumption. It appears to be a good assuption because all our results are in good agreement with the existence of an objective reality. Science does have dogma, all proposed scienctific knowledge must be put to the test by experiment on nature. Unfortunately just because some hypothesis agrees with the result of an experiment doesn't make it "true". It just represents the best thinking on nature at that point. From this point science now has the exact same problem that supernatural religion has, OK we assume it exists but what is it? Because of our methods we can never be sure if we got it right, all we can know is that so far it works. For supernatural religion how it is known is by "revealed truth". It uses sacred writings, wise men, visions, visitations, you know first century concepts like that. What science goes on is the result of experiment on nature. What religion goes on, from a twentyfirst century perspective, is just nonsense.

Starboy

seebs

Or, rather, telling me how you think I should think about science, because you have the True Interpretation Of Science?

For you to be "teaching" me this thing, you must assert that your view is "more correct" than mine; my view of science produces all the right results.

I think we also depend on some level of consistency.

But this does depend on the assumption that the *results* are "true", to some extent. If we assume that experimental results are just random noise, science doesn't work.

You know, you seem to be doing the same thing all the people you object to do; assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand the thing under discussion. I'd guess I have a reasonable basic understanding of science; I'm familiar with the methods and assumptions. Really, we're looking much more at philosophy of science than science itself.

Birdsmgp

I have just seen this Thread. I used to be a Christian also. So I am feeling some of the same things. I haven't been at those Boards. Just the Atheist ones like Atheist Network and The Infidelguy. I have been at Christian Forum a little bit. Trying to find the approprate time to try to say the right thing.

Now I am going shopping for some good Apples for getting into better Health. (I hope...???) or have me some Apple Juice? As another saying goes: "Get bad lemons?" Make Lemonade. (Isn't it?) Lemonade is pretty good, if sweetened.

Need to have a good mind. It is not good to have my mind go to waste? ... is it? ...

Maybe I'll figure the rest of this out latter...

Starboy

seebs, cut it out. I find these attacks on my person and your presumptions on my intents to be getting boring. Your lack of understanding of what is science is easily inferred from your posts. The result of experiment on nature doesn't make it true. The only thing that can be said is that there is evidence to support it. The more widely accepted theories are widely accepted because there is a great deal of evidence to support it, but it only takes a few good expermients to blow the whole thing out of the water. Seebs, what kind of "truth" is that.

Your last statement is spoken like a philosopher. Philosophers don't do science and scientists don't do philosophy. Scientists use the scientific method every day, they understand very well the limits of scientific knowledge. It is the philosopher who seem to get screwed up all the time. They can't come to any agreement or conclusions. The poor scientists make no claims about "truth" and yet come to good agreement all the time. So much for "truth" and philosophy.

Starboy

seebs

All I can tell is that *you* think I don't understand science. Other people have not always come to this conclusion.

That's what I said. Look at that wording:

There *IS* evidence to support it.

Not "we think there might be". There *IS* evidence. We are asserting that the evidence is *real*. We are asserting that the measurements are true.

If they aren't, no science.

You're not listening. I say "experiments depend on the assertion that the observations made are true". You say "how does that make the theory true". I never said it did; science depends on the *observations* being "real", though.

The scientists make lots of claims about truth; they claim that their measurements depict an external world. Without tha objective frame of reference, there is no science.

As to your attacks on philosophy, well, that certainly fits. You might want to learn a bit more about why philosophy exists.

Starboy

Again seebs, your ignorance is showing. The accepted results of experment on nature are disconfirmed all the time. That is why scientist don't use the term "truth". There is no way to know if even well accepted experiments could have been badly bunged up. There was an interesting paper published some time back that showed how the value of certain physical constants have changed over time. It is a classic example of just how "true" experiment on nature can be. What is known is accepted not because it is "true" but because because of supporting evidence. The supporting evidence comes and goes, the theories come and go. It is a very messy business. And there is a good reason why it will always be a very messy business. Reasons that I would never expect a philosopher to know or understand. Even with all that, it is amazing how scientist in different places and times without any knowledge of one another can get the same results to good agreement. This is not "proof" that reality exists but is is evidence. And there is a great deal of it.

Supernatural religion doesn't subject itself to such critial examination because it will come up empty. This is why you find the need to construct a chinese wall around your religion. To protect it from reality.

Starboy