I'm not so sure about your take on the 1st Amendment. It is for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It is just that there cannot be a national religion that is forced upon the populace.
[...]
I think it really was going for not forcing a religion no anyone...but, not that any religion could never be spoken about. The mere presence of a mention or investigation into religion is not forcing anything upon anyone else..it isn't like you won't pass a course if you don't convert.
I think there's been some miscommunication.
A common slogan on this topic is "freedom of religion implies freedom from religion". That's because "freedom from" means exactly what you're offering as an alternative--we are not legally required to have a religion and we are protected from religion being imposed against our will.
I think you misunderstand. They remove videos critical of Scientology. I remember seeing one video produced by the "religion" featured on the YouTube homepage.
Featuring such a video does look nearly hypocritical to me. A related problem fresh on my mind is YouTube's habit of suspending good accounts. It looks like most everything is automated, so people need only attract a few malicious trolls to get the boot. With so many people getting suspended and so many videos being pulled under false pretenses, it's just strange to see them taking a stand like this. It's strange to see them paying attention to the content they're hosting.
There is a strange rectangular object to the left of this coordinate. It doesn't seem like it would be a rock. I imagine if a plane crashed the wings would be gone and such. I dunno, just wondering because I thought it seemed odd.
It's SUPPOSED to be used on people resisting arrest, which is exactly how it was used. It is far safer than manhandling the suspect, or using batons.
Obvious false dichotomy. The asshole student didn't struggle, wrestle, or resist in a threatening way. All he did was lay on the ground handcuffed. Nobody would have used any rough treatment or batons in that situation, nor should these police have used a taser. Grab him by the armpits and carry him to the squad car. Done. Charge him with resisting. If he flails around, then taser him.
Third, he was a whiny, obnoxious bitch, who was trying to cause a scene and incite a crowd.
True, but he would have failed completely had the police not tasered him. The crowd grew to the size it did, and the students became as hostile to the police as they were, only because the police stood around tasering a handcuffed kid lying on the ground rather than taking him in. Drag him to the car. Done. No crowd.
[...] he repeatedly refused to follow police instructions and resisted arrest by refusing to get the hell out and whining about the Patriot act.
Multiple witnesses say he was trying to leave when the police came, but the police wanted him to stop for questioning. It's for trying to leave despite police instructions to the contrary that he should have been arrested. And yes, that patriot act bit of his was asinine.
If a cop tells you something and you ignore it, expect consequences.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that modern man, with it's larger-than-Neanderthal brain, just competed the Neanderthals into extinction rather than mating and absorbing them?
Well, if that's what you mean, I think you're half right. One one hand, no one is saying that we're a true hybrid. There's very little of their DNA in us; certainly not enough to believe that we screwed them out of existence. On the other hand, the competition theory is still on the table.
As for us getting a larger brain by mixing with the "obviously inferior sub-species", I don't think that's so hard to believe. For one thing, Neanderthals probably had bigger brains than we do. After all, their brain cavities are at least measurably larger. Further, I don't think we actually know if this gene regulates brain size, only that it's in a brain-coding region of DNA. (And we only suppose that the gene is superior because it spread so consistently and rapidly, not because we know exactly what it does.) But Neanderthals no doubt had different metabolisms to match their more active lifestyles and colder climates. Perhaps we took on a gene that increases energy flow to the brain. Any number of things could be at work. I would really love to know the details.
I have two answers to them: first, I compare looking up formula to looking up a spelling of a word in a dictionary. It is a very important skill, everybody should be able to do that with words that you use only rarely. However, if you find yourself wrting a paper and having to look up every other word in a dictionary, something is clearly wrong. Either you some serious defficiency in the language, or you are writing a paper on a topic you know nothing about.
Take a look at the spelling wherever comments can be made online. I've found that many (perhaps even most) people are atrocious spellers of even the most common words. You might have noticed paragraphs of decent prose shot full of "prolly." Obviously the writer didn't want to bother checking the spelling of "probably" yet again.
Exposure to the correct spellings and repeated use of words doesn't seem to be a factor. I know that I have a lot of trouble with the spelling of many words myself. Unless one notes for every difficult word the language from which it was borrowed and the rules of that language which influenced its spelling, you're just memorizing arbitrary facts. This has caused me trouble because rote memorization of arbitrary facts, for me, is extremely inefficient and sometimes apparently impossible. I can hardly work without a "why" with which I can reason my way to an answer.
My second answer have to do with the fact that you almost never have to "memorize" a formula. What you should do is to understand a formula. Each formula is in fact a piece of theory, or a description of some properties of a mathematical object, simplified to an extreme. If you know the theory and understand how the formula derives from the theory, and what does it really say about the subject, you don't need to memorize it.
Strangely, that only works if you're going the hard route. If you've ever taken an applied course, you might have been in a situation where understanding is made difficult or impossible. Recently I took an introductory statistics course. This course required only knowledge of algebra, and those with calculus experience usually enrolled in their own appropriate version. The problem was that we used only formulas that were derived by using calculus. The formulas were complicated enough that just reasoning your way to them was out of the question. We were all stuck memorizing with the promise that if we stick by it, after a few more courses it'll all make sense. I've found this to be true of other supposedly simplified courses--they remove that absolutely necessary "why."
"So what, we're not talking about optimization here, we are talking about getting kids to sit at the computer, think logically, use APIs/Libraries, and CREATE!"
From the sound of TFA's description, we're talking about a kind of BASIC that doesn't have libraries or APIs, nor a variety of useful functions. It sounds like the kind of BASIC I knew when I was a kid, which nobody (even children) finds useful for creating anything of any interest these days.
"As every 'real time' protection anti virus scanner I've ever reccommended has been more trouble then its worth (high resource usage, memory leaks & false alarm pop-ups causing the user to turn it off every single time), I would still go with my reccommendation."
For Windows, I've been happily using NOD32. The install file is about 11 meg, the install dir is about 25, and the memory footprint I'm seeing right now is about 16 (and I think I could get it lower by turning off some options). I haven't noticed any delay in booting and I haven't received any false positives. (It's even found things on my system that Norton didn't.) Best of all, the only two times I've ever received a popup were when it actually found a virus/trojan -- and you can even turn that off and have it act on its own.
The downside, though, is that I don't think it's grandma-friendly; options galore.
They have a free 30 day trial version if you're game.// That's my product placement for the day.
"They have to be held accountable for what they do. Why would they be held accountable if they didn't have a choice?"
If a machine is going crazy and harming people do you ignore it saying, "I'm sorry. It doesn't have the ability to make a choice. I can't hold it accountable"? No. You protect people from it. If you can't fix it, you put it away somewhere where it can't harm others. Same thing for people if they have no choice in their behavior.
If truth is relative and you think so, but I don't... then truth isn't relative for me. It's objective. For me.
But what does objective mean? It means that it doesn't just apply to me. It applies to everyone. Because relative truth leads to this contradiction, even if truth is relative it's objective. But as a contradictory concept, it isn't even relative in the first place.
"I'm not sure that you can quantify the difference between 'have to' and 'thinks he has to'."
I agree. It's like "I believe I'm seeing red." It doesn't matter what's happening to my eyes. If I think I'm seeing red, in a very important sense, I am. It's tautological. My experience is what I experience, regardless of its possible lack of external cause.
In the case of "have to" and "thinks he has to," thinking you have to do something sets in motion a self-fulfilling prophesy. Breaking this cycle depends on not just making a choice but on how well you can change the most permanent parts of your brain (like personality); something that's incredibly hard to do.
"That would be like saying there is a difference between thinking something is true and it actually being true. Truth exists only as a relative matter."
And I don't agree with this. There certainly is a difference between the truth "out there" and the "truths" I believe. I'm trying to approximate one unchanging truth I can never quite grasp by constantly modifying my personal copy of it that often disagrees with others. That's how the mind, learning, and science work. But those struggles would all be pointless if truth is relative.
Or does gravity exist for me but not for you? Does the sun shine light for me but not for you? If I take three apples and add two more apples, and I say there are now five but you say there are seven... are we both right? Can you really fly by just thinking about it? No. We can be wrong (and most often are). Because there is non-relative truth out there.
We've had a long conversation and I think its been civil and productive, so I won't feel so bad ending it here while also responding to you. I think we both know this isn't an attempt to just get the last word. If you respond, I'll read your post but I have to move on. It's been good talking to you.
"And if the positivists were shown to be wrong, I'd sure like it if you could show me by whom"
WV Quine for the most part. You could try reading "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," but it's extremely dense. The first time I read it, I had more questions than answers. A summary might be more enlightening than the original text itself.
"Near as I can tell, that's just the surface. Deeper down is a capitalistic struggle for grant money and recognition of their own ideas; for which hardly anybody is willing to examine contrary evidence let alone "non-scientific" or "subjective" evidence"
If you look at the history of science, the contrary evidence is exactly where all the fame and recognition lies. I think scientists know that. Everyone wants to be the Einstein that overturns the old paradigm and start one anew--one named after them. You don't do that by confirming what everyone already believes or making little stepwise improvements. Doing that makes you forgotten.
But that's just the self-interest motive. Meet some scientists. I'm not really one myself (Computer Science and Philosophy don't count), but the ones I know are the people I consider the most inquisitive, intellectually honest and willing to take up a cause on principle. Of course, I don't know that every scientist is like this, but it's a pattern I've found.
"A non-activist judge would IMMEDIATELY recognize that the government, by the Constitution, has NO business saying what is and isn't science, religion, or any other philosophy."
But the government has done so for a very long time in many areas. This is par for the course.
For example, the government didn't require that you go war if your religion objects. As far as the first amendment, this was a-ok. But as a practical necessity, it means that the government must judge conscientious objector claims. Up till 1970, when philosophical objections were allowed, this was standard government practice. Of course, they appealed to theologians for answers (as the Dover judge did), but the government was still in the business of judging the merits of religious claims.
Another example is prison food. Some Jews will only eat kosher. The government has to judge if this is a request that it should take seriously. After all, there have been dozens of fake religions invented in prison that involve only fine dining.
Most importantly there is tax-exempt status. The goal was to free religions from too-easy-to-abuse taxes. But, to do this, some standard must seperate real religions from abusers of the tax system. Is Scientology a religion or just a business? Is something I make up to get myself out of debt a real religion? The government must decide.
On science, there is a standard for scientific methods of evidence processing and and scientific theories used in the corse of a trial. If you want to say that someone is some kind of insane or that DNA (or any new thing) is good evidence, the judge must hear arguments and decide if the method has enough scientific support to be used in trial.
"And because of it, millions of schoolchildren ARE limited in what they can say in the classroom, are forced into a single dogmatic way of thinking instead of retaining freedom."
There was no limit imposed on what schoolchildren can say. The limit is on what the government standard should require be taught to them. And I support that limit. I don't think we should teach children something when we know, to the best of our ability, that it just isn't so. Saying it's for critical thinking seems more to me like some kind of joke or lame excuse.
You say dogma. I say quality. Some things really are wrong. It's only dogma when you refuse t
"All questions are ultimately empirical; all answers ultimately testible."
That would certainly be a surprise to the entire philosophical community. I recommend you write a paper on it.
The last group to say anything like this, the logical positivists, where shown to be wrong. Their cause was abandoned half a century ago. I hope you fare better. Or if there is any particular philosopher you get these ideas from, please give the name.
"They either work or they don't. Those that don't have a tendency to be forgotten by the next generation; those that do are passed down. Science would do well to remember [this lesson]"
You've just described an important part of the scientific process. This is always on the minds of scientists. I consider evolution to be on the right side of this. You might not. But let's not beg the question.
(And it makes me wonder just what you imagine scientists do, if this would be something forgotten to them... Seeing their work as the pragmatic survival of the most useful appeals even to the least philosophical of scientists.)
"Actually, there is one that had some merit: labeling evolution a possibly incorrect theory. I don't know why ANYBODY would have a problem with that- unless they were trying to defend "perfect and unchanging" dogmatic science."
The problem I have with it isn't that they said some part of science might be wrong and that you should think critically about it. The problem is that they didn't go far enough in that claim. Everything might be wrong and you should think critically about everything!
What they did is single out one particular theory and said that it's doubtful. Students would naturally ask, "Why this particular theory? Is it less certain than any others?" The answer is, "No! It's more certain than most others!" but they're giving that false impression.
It's easy to understand why they would do this. While singling evolution out like they did isn't consistent with with the claim that they're concerned about science itself being treated as dogma, it is consistent with the idea that they wanted to sew doubts about a particular scientific theory they don't like, while not caring about the rest of science.
"As far as I'm concerned, that judge was just as religious as anybody else in his decision"
Seeing how he wrote a detailed and rigorous argument for his every point and every fact used in support, I don't understand how he was particularly dogmatic. It would help if you could point to any particular place in his decision where you think he took something for granted that he shouldn't have.
"The question should never have come before a judge at all- and when it did, he should have simply refused to hear the case under the First Amendment."
Again, you should read his opinion. He deals with this.
The judge ruled on the question because: both sides asked him to! Further, both his duty to accept the task and his ruling are consistent with long lines of precedent, with no counter-precedent. We don't want him to be an activist judge, do we?
On the first amendment, see my next paragraph.
"Either we have a separation of religion and state in this country- in which case any individual can say anything they damned well please on subjects of religion including science in ANY situation- or we don't. If we don't, we might as well throw out the Constitution and stop pretending that we have freedom of expression."
You aren't being limited by these decisions. The government and the standards it can enforce are being limited. And one of the principles inherent in the first amendment is that the government is nobody's megaphone when it comes to religion. It does what it can be be impartial on the issue.
But, yes, one unavoidable fact is that the government does things, and that means it must steps on toes. That's why there are standards like the Lemon test, which try to fin
"Since the very beginings during the renaisance, the entire purpose of science has been to discover the Mind of God, and thus a single ethical system, by examining natural law."
The mind of God, yes. A single ethical system, no. All the way back to Francis Bacon, during the entire time that science fell under natural theology, ethics was always considered a separate question.
This claim of yours is extremely controversial. I challenge you to support it.
"That's more cop-out than reality- if the scientific method has any validity at all, then it must have universal validity."
This makes no sense, and just saying it doesn't make it so. A method of empirical investigation applies to... empirical questions. If you don't have an empirical question, you can't use it. That's not a problem; it's just the nature of things. Why you would expect otherwise is a mystery to me.
"And yet, none of these groups oppose it- whenever somebody proposes a law that requires science classrooms to admit to the unpredictable nature of science, they band together to vote the school board out instead."
If you were referring to some group wanting science classes to "admit to the unpredictable nature of science", then you'd have a point. But it looks like you're referring to intelligent design.
The intelligent design proposals have had nothing to do with revealing the limits of science, and opposition to them have had nothing to do with defending some "perfect and unchanging" dogmatic science. The science defenders have two questions: (1) is it science (2) has it been refuted.
On the first question, intelligent design (broadly) failed. Under no conception of the powers of science, supported by any philosopher of science, can science confirm the existence of God. This is especially obvious when trying to specifically argue that God is in what we don't understand, which is what ID has been doing. This is classic fallacious reasoning.
On the second question, intelligent design (specific claims) failed. Dr Behe's and Dr Dembski's claims have been thoroughly refuted several times over. Support them by political means doesn't make them any more science.
I suggest you read the Judge's opinion. He writes clearly, convincingly, and thoroughly. I couldn't explain things better. If that doesn't convince you, there isn't any more that I could do.
"I've yet to meet a scientific realist in this debate- only varieties of atheists who are unable to admit to the fact that theirs is just yet another religion."
You haven't been able to support this assertion. So far, your ideas have been confused, conflated, and stretched. I would appreciate if you demonstrated it.
"They both have a good deal to do with morality; and here's why. If reality itself is subjective, then each one of us is living in our own little moral world..."
And what is your connection between the subjectivity of morality/values and the subjectivity of our empiricism? When one accepts the objectivity of some part of reality, they don't have to--and frequently refuse to--accept the objectivity of some other part.
(And few ever try to discover morality empirically. They more often use a priori philosophical arguments, which aren't bound by our experience in the same way as science.)
"If, on the other hand, there is an objective reality, an objective right and wrong, then there is one correct path (possibly unknowable at present time due to sects and fractional in-fighting) that is the best action for humanity as a whole, not just ourselves. This is the argument of science and organized religion- and is also the reason why I call science "just another religion"."
This is the argument of science? Since when?! The argument of science has long been that it can deal with the observational but that the ethical, metaphysical and normative are outside of its field. Science doesn't deal with all things that may be objective, and could never prove that all things are objective; it only deals with those things that can be tested by observation. Unless you adopt a strange new conception of morality, it is not such a thing.
Simply put: The objectivity of our observations have no relation whatsoever to the objectivity of our ethical judgments. Perhaps you think you've found an argument that shows everything to be subjective. Fine. That doesn't mean that others think that objectivity is a switch they have turned on that applies to everything.
"Are we ethically allowed to fudge the unpredicability and effectively lie to schoolchildren, as if the purpose of science classrooms to instill SCIENCE as a universal BELIEF, immutable and written in stone?"
If you find such a classroom, I guarantee you that it would be a scandal. I would oppose it. Scientists would oppose it. Good teachers would oppose it. The religious would oppose it. It's not just wrong--it's against science itself to teach that belief, even according to scientific realists. (Actually, especially according to scientific realists.)
"... by virtue of its method, the unchanging truth of religion has been constantly changing"
My bad. That should be: "the knowledge in our possession, while supposedly the unchanging truth itself, has been constantly changing." It seems I became lazy with my language after trying to correct yours. That's a little hypocrisy, I suppose.
I hope what I wrote can be understood in its context. I'm just saying that the situation for theology is analogous to the situation for science.
"Exactly. Basically what I'm doing is drawing a bright line between objective reality and experimental reality- and saying that the two are NOT and can never be equal."
This is a line that most already considered drawn. What's in fashion right now is the belief that science is a pragmatic search for useful theories and truth isn't even a goal of science; but even scientific realists conceive of science as approximating truth, rather than capturing it. Further, the responses to your posts that I've seen don't seem to be arguing against this point. Rather, they're arguing against your confusing wording and the extreme conclusions you appear to reach from this starting point.
"Common sense is rather uncommon these days- but neither has any bearing on reality."
I mention it only to imply that any statements you've made that fall under this classification are probably not what people find controversial. I mention it to find the disagreement, not to make a case on either side of it.
"... but I say that makes science so unpredictable as to be almost worthless for actual learn-once-and-it's-right-forever knowledge- the kind of knowledge that religion offers. And that's why evolution loses every time in the theological debate and for those people who see philosophy rather than science as defining truth."
On the contrary, science is only too unpredictable if any unpredictability is too much. But everything is subject to some level of unpredictability.
Even logical deduction itself has its uncertainties, as was shown by WV Quine's "Two Dogmas" paper and accepted by naturalized epistemology since. Deduction itself is something that has changed and may change in the future.
Theology, also. People once believed that the Bible says demons cause illness, that the Bible says the earth is flat, etc. But no longer. The Bible has been reinterpreted countless times and the unchangeable truths within have always been in flux. Even on the existence of the soul, Nancey Murphy and other modern theologians argue that the Bible never required such a concept. Yet people believed that it did. Some rare Christians even believe that the divinity of Jesus is nothing more than a widespread heresy. They say they are the true Christians because they follow his word, while others reinvented him shortly after his death.
The "learn-once-and-it's-right-forever" knowledge offered by religion isn't ever in our possession. Because the method of theology is to reinterpret available facts so that new facts do not lead to a contradiction, by virtue of its method, the unchanging truth of religion has been constantly changing. The religious persons that think deeply about such things don't argue that they themselves have unchanging truth, but that the Bible reflects unchanging truth that their understanding only approximates in their never-ending hermeneutic circles.
No, religion is no more certain than science. While evolution does often lose out because people think otherwise, they are wrong. Convincing them of that may be extremely difficult or even impossible, but tearing apart science certainly won't get us there.
"There's another name for it- moral relativism."
No, David Stove's "Wost Argument" and your own (as presented) have nothing to do with morality. I really don't know how you got that idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure about your take on the 1st Amendment. It is for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It is just that there cannot be a national religion that is forced upon the populace.
[...]
I think it really was going for not forcing a religion no anyone...but, not that any religion could never be spoken about. The mere presence of a mention or investigation into religion is not forcing anything upon anyone else..it isn't like you won't pass a course if you don't convert.
I think there's been some miscommunication.
A common slogan on this topic is "freedom of religion implies freedom from religion". That's because "freedom from" means exactly what you're offering as an alternative--we are not legally required to have a religion and we are protected from religion being imposed against our will.
I think you misunderstand. They remove videos critical of Scientology. I remember seeing one video produced by the "religion" featured on the YouTube homepage.
Featuring such a video does look nearly hypocritical to me. A related problem fresh on my mind is YouTube's habit of suspending good accounts. It looks like most everything is automated, so people need only attract a few malicious trolls to get the boot. With so many people getting suspended and so many videos being pulled under false pretenses, it's just strange to see them taking a stand like this. It's strange to see them paying attention to the content they're hosting.
38°08'01.34"N 119°25'20.19"W
There is a strange rectangular object to the left of this coordinate. It doesn't seem like it would be a rock. I imagine if a plane crashed the wings would be gone and such. I dunno, just wondering because I thought it seemed odd.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that modern man, with it's larger-than-Neanderthal brain, just competed the Neanderthals into extinction rather than mating and absorbing them?
Well, if that's what you mean, I think you're half right. One one hand, no one is saying that we're a true hybrid. There's very little of their DNA in us; certainly not enough to believe that we screwed them out of existence. On the other hand, the competition theory is still on the table.
As for us getting a larger brain by mixing with the "obviously inferior sub-species", I don't think that's so hard to believe. For one thing, Neanderthals probably had bigger brains than we do. After all, their brain cavities are at least measurably larger. Further, I don't think we actually know if this gene regulates brain size, only that it's in a brain-coding region of DNA. (And we only suppose that the gene is superior because it spread so consistently and rapidly, not because we know exactly what it does.) But Neanderthals no doubt had different metabolisms to match their more active lifestyles and colder climates. Perhaps we took on a gene that increases energy flow to the brain. Any number of things could be at work. I would really love to know the details.
I couldn't even find the story part. I moved the mouse over the entire visible screen and nothing happened. :(
/jumps around //always celebrates in text ///has nothing else to say
Exposure to the correct spellings and repeated use of words doesn't seem to be a factor. I know that I have a lot of trouble with the spelling of many words myself. Unless one notes for every difficult word the language from which it was borrowed and the rules of that language which influenced its spelling, you're just memorizing arbitrary facts. This has caused me trouble because rote memorization of arbitrary facts, for me, is extremely inefficient and sometimes apparently impossible. I can hardly work without a "why" with which I can reason my way to an answer.
Strangely, that only works if you're going the hard route. If you've ever taken an applied course, you might have been in a situation where understanding is made difficult or impossible. Recently I took an introductory statistics course. This course required only knowledge of algebra, and those with calculus experience usually enrolled in their own appropriate version. The problem was that we used only formulas that were derived by using calculus. The formulas were complicated enough that just reasoning your way to them was out of the question. We were all stuck memorizing with the promise that if we stick by it, after a few more courses it'll all make sense. I've found this to be true of other supposedly simplified courses--they remove that absolutely necessary "why."
"So what, we're not talking about optimization here, we are talking about getting kids to sit at the computer, think logically, use APIs/Libraries, and CREATE!"
From the sound of TFA's description, we're talking about a kind of BASIC that doesn't have libraries or APIs, nor a variety of useful functions. It sounds like the kind of BASIC I knew when I was a kid, which nobody (even children) finds useful for creating anything of any interest these days.
And how is this plan different from direct democracy? Why have representatives at all?
I haven't had that problem, but a quick search found others. A common solution is to run msconfig, find tcpsvcs.exe, uncheck it, and restart.
"As every 'real time' protection anti virus scanner I've ever reccommended has been more trouble then its worth (high resource usage, memory leaks & false alarm pop-ups causing the user to turn it off every single time), I would still go with my reccommendation."
// That's my product placement for the day.
For Windows, I've been happily using NOD32. The install file is about 11 meg, the install dir is about 25, and the memory footprint I'm seeing right now is about 16 (and I think I could get it lower by turning off some options). I haven't noticed any delay in booting and I haven't received any false positives. (It's even found things on my system that Norton didn't.) Best of all, the only two times I've ever received a popup were when it actually found a virus/trojan -- and you can even turn that off and have it act on its own.
The downside, though, is that I don't think it's grandma-friendly; options galore.
They have a free 30 day trial version if you're game.
"They have to be held accountable for what they do. Why would they be held accountable if they didn't have a choice?"
If a machine is going crazy and harming people do you ignore it saying, "I'm sorry. It doesn't have the ability to make a choice. I can't hold it accountable"? No. You protect people from it. If you can't fix it, you put it away somewhere where it can't harm others. Same thing for people if they have no choice in their behavior.
I should probably put it this way:
If truth is relative and you think so, but I don't... then truth isn't relative for me. It's objective. For me.
But what does objective mean? It means that it doesn't just apply to me. It applies to everyone. Because relative truth leads to this contradiction, even if truth is relative it's objective. But as a contradictory concept, it isn't even relative in the first place.
"I'm not sure that you can quantify the difference between 'have to' and 'thinks he has to'."
I agree. It's like "I believe I'm seeing red." It doesn't matter what's happening to my eyes. If I think I'm seeing red, in a very important sense, I am. It's tautological. My experience is what I experience, regardless of its possible lack of external cause.
In the case of "have to" and "thinks he has to," thinking you have to do something sets in motion a self-fulfilling prophesy. Breaking this cycle depends on not just making a choice but on how well you can change the most permanent parts of your brain (like personality); something that's incredibly hard to do.
"That would be like saying there is a difference between thinking something is true and it actually being true. Truth exists only as a relative matter."
And I don't agree with this. There certainly is a difference between the truth "out there" and the "truths" I believe. I'm trying to approximate one unchanging truth I can never quite grasp by constantly modifying my personal copy of it that often disagrees with others. That's how the mind, learning, and science work. But those struggles would all be pointless if truth is relative.
Or does gravity exist for me but not for you? Does the sun shine light for me but not for you? If I take three apples and add two more apples, and I say there are now five but you say there are seven... are we both right? Can you really fly by just thinking about it? No. We can be wrong (and most often are). Because there is non-relative truth out there.
"You don't get a research grant for saying everything is OK."
If all the scientists' complaints of censorship are any indication, you don't get much for saying things aren't OK.
We've had a long conversation and I think its been civil and productive, so I won't feel so bad ending it here while also responding to you. I think we both know this isn't an attempt to just get the last word. If you respond, I'll read your post but I have to move on. It's been good talking to you.
"And if the positivists were shown to be wrong, I'd sure like it if you could show me by whom"
WV Quine for the most part. You could try reading "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," but it's extremely dense. The first time I read it, I had more questions than answers. A summary might be more enlightening than the original text itself.
"Near as I can tell, that's just the surface. Deeper down is a capitalistic struggle for grant money and recognition of their own ideas; for which hardly anybody is willing to examine contrary evidence let alone "non-scientific" or "subjective" evidence"
If you look at the history of science, the contrary evidence is exactly where all the fame and recognition lies. I think scientists know that. Everyone wants to be the Einstein that overturns the old paradigm and start one anew--one named after them. You don't do that by confirming what everyone already believes or making little stepwise improvements. Doing that makes you forgotten.
But that's just the self-interest motive. Meet some scientists. I'm not really one myself (Computer Science and Philosophy don't count), but the ones I know are the people I consider the most inquisitive, intellectually honest and willing to take up a cause on principle. Of course, I don't know that every scientist is like this, but it's a pattern I've found.
"A non-activist judge would IMMEDIATELY recognize that the government, by the Constitution, has NO business saying what is and isn't science, religion, or any other philosophy."
But the government has done so for a very long time in many areas. This is par for the course.
For example, the government didn't require that you go war if your religion objects. As far as the first amendment, this was a-ok. But as a practical necessity, it means that the government must judge conscientious objector claims. Up till 1970, when philosophical objections were allowed, this was standard government practice. Of course, they appealed to theologians for answers (as the Dover judge did), but the government was still in the business of judging the merits of religious claims.
Another example is prison food. Some Jews will only eat kosher. The government has to judge if this is a request that it should take seriously. After all, there have been dozens of fake religions invented in prison that involve only fine dining.
Most importantly there is tax-exempt status. The goal was to free religions from too-easy-to-abuse taxes. But, to do this, some standard must seperate real religions from abusers of the tax system. Is Scientology a religion or just a business? Is something I make up to get myself out of debt a real religion? The government must decide.
On science, there is a standard for scientific methods of evidence processing and and scientific theories used in the corse of a trial. If you want to say that someone is some kind of insane or that DNA (or any new thing) is good evidence, the judge must hear arguments and decide if the method has enough scientific support to be used in trial.
"And because of it, millions of schoolchildren ARE limited in what they can say in the classroom, are forced into a single dogmatic way of thinking instead of retaining freedom."
There was no limit imposed on what schoolchildren can say. The limit is on what the government standard should require be taught to them. And I support that limit. I don't think we should teach children something when we know, to the best of our ability, that it just isn't so. Saying it's for critical thinking seems more to me like some kind of joke or lame excuse.
You say dogma. I say quality. Some things really are wrong. It's only dogma when you refuse t
"All questions are ultimately empirical; all answers ultimately testible."
That would certainly be a surprise to the entire philosophical community. I recommend you write a paper on it.
The last group to say anything like this, the logical positivists, where shown to be wrong. Their cause was abandoned half a century ago. I hope you fare better. Or if there is any particular philosopher you get these ideas from, please give the name.
"They either work or they don't. Those that don't have a tendency to be forgotten by the next generation; those that do are passed down. Science would do well to remember [this lesson]"
You've just described an important part of the scientific process. This is always on the minds of scientists. I consider evolution to be on the right side of this. You might not. But let's not beg the question.
(And it makes me wonder just what you imagine scientists do, if this would be something forgotten to them... Seeing their work as the pragmatic survival of the most useful appeals even to the least philosophical of scientists.)
"Actually, there is one that had some merit: labeling evolution a possibly incorrect theory. I don't know why ANYBODY would have a problem with that- unless they were trying to defend "perfect and unchanging" dogmatic science."
The problem I have with it isn't that they said some part of science might be wrong and that you should think critically about it. The problem is that they didn't go far enough in that claim. Everything might be wrong and you should think critically about everything!
What they did is single out one particular theory and said that it's doubtful. Students would naturally ask, "Why this particular theory? Is it less certain than any others?" The answer is, "No! It's more certain than most others!" but they're giving that false impression.
It's easy to understand why they would do this. While singling evolution out like they did isn't consistent with with the claim that they're concerned about science itself being treated as dogma, it is consistent with the idea that they wanted to sew doubts about a particular scientific theory they don't like, while not caring about the rest of science.
"As far as I'm concerned, that judge was just as religious as anybody else in his decision"
Seeing how he wrote a detailed and rigorous argument for his every point and every fact used in support, I don't understand how he was particularly dogmatic. It would help if you could point to any particular place in his decision where you think he took something for granted that he shouldn't have.
"The question should never have come before a judge at all- and when it did, he should have simply refused to hear the case under the First Amendment."
Again, you should read his opinion. He deals with this.
The judge ruled on the question because: both sides asked him to! Further, both his duty to accept the task and his ruling are consistent with long lines of precedent, with no counter-precedent. We don't want him to be an activist judge, do we?
On the first amendment, see my next paragraph.
"Either we have a separation of religion and state in this country- in which case any individual can say anything they damned well please on subjects of religion including science in ANY situation- or we don't. If we don't, we might as well throw out the Constitution and stop pretending that we have freedom of expression."
You aren't being limited by these decisions. The government and the standards it can enforce are being limited. And one of the principles inherent in the first amendment is that the government is nobody's megaphone when it comes to religion. It does what it can be be impartial on the issue.
But, yes, one unavoidable fact is that the government does things, and that means it must steps on toes. That's why there are standards like the Lemon test, which try to fin
"Since the very beginings during the renaisance, the entire purpose of science has been to discover the Mind of God, and thus a single ethical system, by examining natural law."
The mind of God, yes. A single ethical system, no. All the way back to Francis Bacon, during the entire time that science fell under natural theology, ethics was always considered a separate question.
This claim of yours is extremely controversial. I challenge you to support it.
"That's more cop-out than reality- if the scientific method has any validity at all, then it must have universal validity."
This makes no sense, and just saying it doesn't make it so. A method of empirical investigation applies to... empirical questions. If you don't have an empirical question, you can't use it. That's not a problem; it's just the nature of things. Why you would expect otherwise is a mystery to me.
"And yet, none of these groups oppose it- whenever somebody proposes a law that requires science classrooms to admit to the unpredictable nature of science, they band together to vote the school board out instead."
If you were referring to some group wanting science classes to "admit to the unpredictable nature of science", then you'd have a point. But it looks like you're referring to intelligent design.
The intelligent design proposals have had nothing to do with revealing the limits of science, and opposition to them have had nothing to do with defending some "perfect and unchanging" dogmatic science. The science defenders have two questions: (1) is it science (2) has it been refuted.
On the first question, intelligent design (broadly) failed. Under no conception of the powers of science, supported by any philosopher of science, can science confirm the existence of God. This is especially obvious when trying to specifically argue that God is in what we don't understand, which is what ID has been doing. This is classic fallacious reasoning.
On the second question, intelligent design (specific claims) failed. Dr Behe's and Dr Dembski's claims have been thoroughly refuted several times over. Support them by political means doesn't make them any more science.
I suggest you read the Judge's opinion. He writes clearly, convincingly, and thoroughly. I couldn't explain things better. If that doesn't convince you, there isn't any more that I could do.
"I've yet to meet a scientific realist in this debate- only varieties of atheists who are unable to admit to the fact that theirs is just yet another religion."
You haven't been able to support this assertion. So far, your ideas have been confused, conflated, and stretched. I would appreciate if you demonstrated it.
"They both have a good deal to do with morality; and here's why. If reality itself is subjective, then each one of us is living in our own little moral world..."
And what is your connection between the subjectivity of morality/values and the subjectivity of our empiricism? When one accepts the objectivity of some part of reality, they don't have to--and frequently refuse to--accept the objectivity of some other part.
(And few ever try to discover morality empirically. They more often use a priori philosophical arguments, which aren't bound by our experience in the same way as science.)
"If, on the other hand, there is an objective reality, an objective right and wrong, then there is one correct path (possibly unknowable at present time due to sects and fractional in-fighting) that is the best action for humanity as a whole, not just ourselves. This is the argument of science and organized religion- and is also the reason why I call science "just another religion"."
This is the argument of science? Since when?! The argument of science has long been that it can deal with the observational but that the ethical, metaphysical and normative are outside of its field. Science doesn't deal with all things that may be objective, and could never prove that all things are objective; it only deals with those things that can be tested by observation. Unless you adopt a strange new conception of morality, it is not such a thing.
Simply put: The objectivity of our observations have no relation whatsoever to the objectivity of our ethical judgments. Perhaps you think you've found an argument that shows everything to be subjective. Fine. That doesn't mean that others think that objectivity is a switch they have turned on that applies to everything.
"Are we ethically allowed to fudge the unpredicability and effectively lie to schoolchildren, as if the purpose of science classrooms to instill SCIENCE as a universal BELIEF, immutable and written in stone?"
If you find such a classroom, I guarantee you that it would be a scandal. I would oppose it. Scientists would oppose it. Good teachers would oppose it. The religious would oppose it. It's not just wrong--it's against science itself to teach that belief, even according to scientific realists. (Actually, especially according to scientific realists.)
"... by virtue of its method, the unchanging truth of religion has been constantly changing"
My bad. That should be: "the knowledge in our possession, while supposedly the unchanging truth itself, has been constantly changing." It seems I became lazy with my language after trying to correct yours. That's a little hypocrisy, I suppose.
I hope what I wrote can be understood in its context. I'm just saying that the situation for theology is analogous to the situation for science.
"Exactly. Basically what I'm doing is drawing a bright line between objective reality and experimental reality- and saying that the two are NOT and can never be equal."
This is a line that most already considered drawn. What's in fashion right now is the belief that science is a pragmatic search for useful theories and truth isn't even a goal of science; but even scientific realists conceive of science as approximating truth, rather than capturing it. Further, the responses to your posts that I've seen don't seem to be arguing against this point. Rather, they're arguing against your confusing wording and the extreme conclusions you appear to reach from this starting point.
"Common sense is rather uncommon these days- but neither has any bearing on reality."
I mention it only to imply that any statements you've made that fall under this classification are probably not what people find controversial. I mention it to find the disagreement, not to make a case on either side of it.
"... but I say that makes science so unpredictable as to be almost worthless for actual learn-once-and-it's-right-forever knowledge- the kind of knowledge that religion offers. And that's why evolution loses every time in the theological debate and for those people who see philosophy rather than science as defining truth."
On the contrary, science is only too unpredictable if any unpredictability is too much. But everything is subject to some level of unpredictability.
Even logical deduction itself has its uncertainties, as was shown by WV Quine's "Two Dogmas" paper and accepted by naturalized epistemology since. Deduction itself is something that has changed and may change in the future.
Theology, also. People once believed that the Bible says demons cause illness, that the Bible says the earth is flat, etc. But no longer. The Bible has been reinterpreted countless times and the unchangeable truths within have always been in flux. Even on the existence of the soul, Nancey Murphy and other modern theologians argue that the Bible never required such a concept. Yet people believed that it did. Some rare Christians even believe that the divinity of Jesus is nothing more than a widespread heresy. They say they are the true Christians because they follow his word, while others reinvented him shortly after his death.
The "learn-once-and-it's-right-forever" knowledge offered by religion isn't ever in our possession. Because the method of theology is to reinterpret available facts so that new facts do not lead to a contradiction, by virtue of its method, the unchanging truth of religion has been constantly changing. The religious persons that think deeply about such things don't argue that they themselves have unchanging truth, but that the Bible reflects unchanging truth that their understanding only approximates in their never-ending hermeneutic circles.
No, religion is no more certain than science. While evolution does often lose out because people think otherwise, they are wrong. Convincing them of that may be extremely difficult or even impossible, but tearing apart science certainly won't get us there.
"There's another name for it- moral relativism."
No, David Stove's "Wost Argument" and your own (as presented) have nothing to do with morality. I really don't know how you got that idea.