Arrowman

Well, galiel stole my thunder. He has hit the nail on the head. The main reason why this analogy is rather difficult to deal with, is because it is faulty and inherently biased. It equates the skeptic with the blind person (someone who is unable to see something which nonetheless exists) with a skeptic, and subtly implies that skeptics are "lacking" something.

Consider the words of seraphim:
- in which the capacity to believe in myths is lauded as being in some sense superior to rational thought.

Even though the other posters to this thread have done a fair job of rebutting this analogy, at the end of the day the analogy itself is faulty, carries an inherent bias, and does not deserve too much analysis.

Seraphim

"Seraphim, if you have additional scientific data which we are not privileged to (broadly and openly acknowledging the many great scientists from eastern countries), then please enlighten us. "

My reply : Why don't you start by asking me questions?

"Indeed for an eastern philosophy, Maoism certainly asserted godlessness through logic. "

My reply : Maosim? Which great society did Maoism produced? Of all the principles of the East, you have to choose one that oppressed others into "believing" in something? Why? Doesn't closely shows similarities to your own society?

"But if you don’t have this data (and I recall you previously saying your own scientific understanding is not strong), then enough with the fortune cookies. Don’t hide behind an artificial cultural curtain to protect your superstitions. "

My reply : When I said the principles of the East, I meant those which produces results and something which is considered positive. Compared to China 150 years ago, China now is a backwater country where the people forced to live in "arranged" ways like cattles by their so-called leaders.

I'm not hiding behind anything, history had proved that East were better than the West in term of cultural, medicines, science etc. Are you denying this facts?

By emphryio

"Ahhh, I envy you Seraphim. It must feel good to know everything.
(Except how to use the quotes button.) "

My reply : I don't know everything and most likely will never know. I accept that truth and keep my mind open of ALL possibilities no matter what it maybe.

So what's your excuse for behaving like you know everything?

By Arrowman

--------------------------------------------------
Don't look so high upon yourself. You came from a society where "to look is to use the eyes alone". In Eastern society, one that looks with the eyes alone is blind, he have to observe with his heart for that is where the true defination of a meaning comes from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- in which the capacity to believe in myths is lauded as being in some sense superior to rational thought.
Even though the other posters to this thread have done a fair job of rebutting this analogy, at the end of the day the analogy itself is faulty, carries an inherent bias, and does not deserve too much analysis.

My reply : Hahahahah ....

Faulty analogy, bias and don't deserve too much analysis? You put such interesting verdict on others and their thoughts as if they are nothing but people with serious mental disorders.

I have history of over 5,000 years and from various culture to back my chain of thoughts, what you have to show your chain of thoughts is a proper one?
Words of men who died? Insufficient.
Books on puzzling concepts? Insufficient.
Greater leaders who used your concepts? Show me some.
Mind showing me where your logic managed to create powerful society that derived from logic alone?

Undercurrent

I agree that the analogy is biased by the choice of example, but I wouldn't say faulty. It is a legitimate question to ask, "How can we know that things exist, if they can only be detected in principle by other humans, but not you?"

The stanard methodolgy is to use the other humans an you would use mechanical instruments. For a blind man, other humans who can see can all indicate that sunlight is present without communicating with each other. This is a strong indication that they are actually functioning as detectors of something indpendent of themselves.

I remeber seeing a skeptical study of cranial-sacral therapy along the sam vein. The premiss of CS work is that the cerebro-spinal fluid has a "pulse" independent of the heartbeat which can be detected and adjusted by a CS therepist. Since this pulse could not be detected by instruments, several therepists who claim to be able to detect it were brought in. They were asked, to independently give the rate of this pulse on several patients without looking at each others answers. The results were all over the map, giving a good indication that the therepists wer not actually detecting anything real outside their own imagination.

Consider then, all the people in the world who claim to be able to act as instruments to detect God. Their opinions of him are all over the map, and the only way any concensus is ever acquired is by, in the best case, dicussing, and in the worst case enforcing belief. This says to me that the pople who claim to be able to detect God are not detecting anything outside their own heads.

m.

Arrowman

Yep. Galiel and I have shown how the analogy is faulty. You have not rebutted our arguments. The assertion stands - the analogy is faulty.

Nope. Where someone makes an assertion that is not supported by evidence, I point that out. That is simply an aspect of rational debate.

Choosing to interpret that as 'passing verdict ... as though they have serious mental disorders' is entirely unjustified and simply demonstrates that you wish to dodge the question.

Well, for one thing, I don't claim that "a lot of people have believed this for a long time" as evidence that something is true. I try to recognise the difference between ancient wisdom and ancient stupidity.

Insufficient, certainly, if those words are simply opinions or statements of belief. Sufficient, indeed, if those words are supported by logic and evidence, and can be demonstrated to be still valid today (eg. Isaac Newton).

Insufficient, indeed, if you cannot grasp "puzzling concepts" such as Occam's Razor.

What a ridiculous question. Why don't you show me a society that derived from calculus alone. Pretty much the same thing.

Seraphim, I know you're not very fond of logic and rational thought, because they challenge beliefs that you hold. Many people find themselves in that situation, and they generally claim (wrongly) to be actually thinking logically and rationally. The amusing thing about you is that you don't even make that claim; you proudly proclaim that you aren't being logical, and that logic is inferior to Eastern mysticism. It's very difficult to have a sensible discussion in that environment.

Triple Six

The irony of you sitting behind a computer, a device only made possible by scientific discovery and logic, and spewing out this bigoted crap is probably not something you choose to see.

Logic is not a "cultural" phenomenon. There are many brilliant Asian scientists and engineers today, but they have succeeded, like everyone else, by rejecting mystical garbage and sticking logic and verifiable facts. Tell me of one great discovery, medicine or invention in current and productive use that owes its success solely to Eastern "culture" and not application of logic or scientific method which is of course culture independent.

Seraphim

"Yep. Galiel and I have shown how the analogy is faulty. You have not rebutted our arguments. The assertion stands - the analogy is faulty."

My reply : Which argument is that? What you showed me so far is a lousy excuse for chain of logic, nothing more.

"Nope. Where someone makes an assertion that is not supported by evidence, I point that out. That is simply an aspect of rational debate."

My reply : Nonsense. And what do you know of Eastern society to make assumptions that what we know is not rational?

"Choosing to interpret that as 'passing verdict ... as though they have serious mental disorders' is entirely unjustified and simply demonstrates that you wish to dodge the question."

My reply : I persume that labelling others and their thoughts as bias, faulty and don't deserve too much analyse is OK? In my opinion, that is same as calling someone mentally unstable.

"Well, for one thing, I don't claim that "a lot of people have believed this for a long time" as evidence that something is true. I try to recognise the difference between ancient wisdom and ancient stupidity."

My reply : Why is that? Is rationality is what you claim to be holding, why don't people believe in it?
Because it is easier to believe in God? Not necessarily true with all this customs and rules that comes with a religion.
Because afraid of going to hell? For religion like Hindusm, Buddhist and Taoist, scare of hell is nothing because they been there and probably will do so in the future. Save of the scare of hell into submission crap to the Arabic religions.

And another thing - Who makes the assumption that something is wisdom and something is stupid? You? What you think you are? A Buddha?
Wise and stupid is nothing more than your own understanding. You understand it, it's a wise concept, you don't understand it, then it is a stupid concept.

"Insufficient, certainly, if those words are simply opinions or statements of belief. Sufficient, indeed, if those words are supported by logic and evidence, and can be demonstrated to be still valid today (eg. Isaac Newton)."

My reply : Now long does it takes to have a complete logical model to use to guide the humanity? Another 100 years? 200 years?

What you have now is nothing more than words of dead men to guide you. While it is proper to accept it in term of science and technology (such as principles of Gravity etc), I find it (such as logic and chains of thoughts) unfit to use to deal with another human being in normal life simply because men change according to time and this change bring newer emotions and chains of thoughts.

"Insufficient, indeed, if you cannot grasp "puzzling concepts" such as Occam's Razor."

My reply : Insufficient indeed if you think I will allow a dead man who lived half across the world in 14th Century to tell me how to think for myself. Does the word "Cripple" means anything to you? That's what I have picture of when I hear someone actually considering to accept this as logic.

"What a ridiculous question. Why don't you show me a society that derived from calculus alone. Pretty much the same thing."

My reply : No it is not riddiculos. It is very much logical question. Show me a leader who lead his people by using chains of logic rather than custom or religion. One should be sufficient and we can use him as case study for efficiency of logic in terms of nation building and development.

It is not riddiculos because religion and customs (which you considered as stupid early) played the same role a few hundred years ago. If logic to take this place, it must first prove its worthy by examples.

"Seraphim, I know you're not very fond of logic and rational thought, because they challenge beliefs that you hold. Many people find themselves in that situation, and they generally claim (wrongly) to be actually thinking logically and rationally. The amusing thing about you is that you don't even make that claim; you proudly proclaim that you aren't being logical, and that logic is inferior to Eastern mysticism. It's very difficult to have a sensible discussion in that environment. "

My reply : I have told you that how I see things logically is different than what you see. While you may not accept this as logical and critical thinking, I feel it is sufficient as my chain of reasoning.

And I'm not other people, I'm ME. While you may have face (and won over) people who are lack of insight of why they do such things themselves and have poor knowledge of their own heritage and belief, you will find me to be opposite of those quality.

fando

Well, the meta arguments are getting boring. I haven't heard the obvious answer to this question yet:

Simple. You see, there is this thing called Science...

Secular Pinoy

The evasion continues. Why not expand on this attempt at hand-waving the problem. Why be obtuse, unless you're trying to hide your inability to answer the challenge?

Corgan Sow

Most of the South East Asian countries already been invaded as early as 15th Century by foreigners and that is the reason of their decline as well. Now you could understand why I don't look highly toward those from the West.

HUH?!

earlier in Malaysian Politics at Political Discussions:

"My reply : It is the strong ones who made Malaysia as it is now, not weakenings. Yes, Earth is for those who deserve it - those who cherish its beauty and wonder about meaning of things and not ones who makes up theories and hide behind it."

Aren't you suppose to blame ourselves, inferior Malayans when the Portugese took over our shores?

galiel

Seraphim, check out the links I posted in another thread you are in re: basic concept of logic, logical fallacies, critical thinking and the scientific method.

If you wish to debate with rationalists, you need to learn the basic ideas behind rational thought. If I wished to debate apologetics in a Christian forum, (not that I ever, ever would), I would have the courtesy and common sense to take some time to learn about the basic ideas behind apologetics.

Since critical thinking is a valuable tool that has the advantage of being universally applicable by anyone regardless of their circumstances or opinions, you might actually acquire a useful tool that you can apply to other areas of your life (unlike apologetics, where I would learn nothing useful at all).

Your very first post in these forums was full of bluster about how invincible you are and how no-one can best you in debate. Your subsequent posts have revealed that, although well intentioned, you lack even the basic understanding of logic necessary to carry on a coherent discussion. That, coupled with a complete ignorance about even the most basic concepts in science and a refusal to cede even the most trivial point in order to move forward, make conversations with you quite frustrating, and a near exercise in futility.

In sum: lighten up, read a little, learn a little, and don't be so sure you have already divined everything the universe has to teach you. And, if you wish to engage in rational discussion, learn the basic tools of the trade.