I think your list of "tenets" is a pretty fair description of the scientific method, at least as far as the "hard" physical sciences go.
The "soft" sciences (psychology, economics, etc.) have a hard time with your first principle. (We don't like to test things that, if true, make people suffer.) Which may be why they aren't nearly as predictive as we'd like them to be.
Mathematics doesn't really seem to work that way at all. (I have an M.S. in math.) A theorem in math isn't anything like a theory in physics, as far as "proof" goes. Testing something in math isn't the same, either.
Clearly we don't all go out and independently verify every finding we're told. However, I don't think this is the same as taking it on faith. I think we come to trust science because we're surrounded by results which match the predictions of scientific theories. I can't see how something similar could happen with religion because I'm not aware of any religions making testable predictions. Also, maybe you could elaborate on your reference to non-scientific evidence. Maybe this ties into your statement that your religion doesn't expect you to believe simply because they said so. I think the biggest reason why the evidence I have can't be considered scientific or legal evidence, is that it's pretty non-transferable. Unmistakable feelings, "coincidences" beyond coincidence, lifestyle direction that really does make me happier, predictions that are always accurate but too personal to share, things like that. So, the evidence is real, just not very shareable.
Now, you don't know me, so I'm not really a very credible source. Even if you DID know me, it still wouldn't matter, you'd still have to find out for yourself, doing your own "experiments."
Err.. what? Very funny by the way. I hope you can see how comical this all is. I don't care if some goof think He's our father or our mother or some 3-in-1 shampoo mix of fathers and sons and deities, or maybe some distant cousin with a grudge. The central tenet of all these faiths that have god being oh-so-pissed about you not believing in him is that he has a mentality of a child. He wants you to "believe" in him and not all the other millions of versions of him, or he'll put you in hell. And if your'e christian, that version holds that he popped you into existence with "sin" inherited from people youve never seen. And if you're jewish, you are chosen because god likes some racial profiles and not others. Muslims also have some great stuff. Sounds like The Sims to me. Here's another one. Is this misrepresentation of religion deliberately dishonest, or is he merely uninformed/fooled.
As Mark Twain said: Faith is believing something you know ain't true. Mr. Clemens was a master at making quotes that sounded so good people want to believe them. Luckily for you, your habits of scientific thinking keep you from being suckered in just because it sounds witty and you want to believe it.
All through this thread you keep saying religious ideas are just as valid as scientific ones, but that's simply not the case.
As much as I'd accept that religious ideas might not be as scientifically valid as scienctific ideas, universally less valid is a pretty big claim to make without first proving something about religion.
Ideas based on facts are superior to fiction and superstition.
I'd totally agree with that. Unfortunately, way too many "facts" aren't facts.
Science isn't true because it says so.
I'd accept that. To me saying "science is true" is about as helpful as saying "swimming is true."
It lays out a set of principles designed for making objective, logical assessments of the observable world.
I'd also agree with that.
If you disagree with any of those basic tenets, feel free to enlighten us;
As much as I basically agree with your definition of science, I don't know which list of tenets (doctrines, beliefs, dogmas) you're referring to.
but we can all see what they are
When you're advocating scientific methods, you shouldn't try to prove things by saying "we can all see." I think that attempting to find/create such a list that would be (fairly) universally accepted (and proving that acceptance, of course) might help you see how non-monolithic science is.
and judge whether or not they achieve their goal of objectivity.
Make a list of hot moral/political topics (I'll start you off): Divorce, Slavery, Racism, Global Warming, Environmentalism, Communism, Democracy, Homosexuality, Divine Right of Kings, Class Structures, etc. For any of these topics, was (is) science (or scientific concensus) coherent about them BEFORE societal opinions changed? No. The scientific method IS objective. Unfortunately for the objectivity of science, the method is applied by inherently non-objective beings.
On top of this foundation is a mountain of research. You're free to read reports, examine evidence, and conduct experiments yourself if there's anything you're skeptical of.
Sure, but for most of it, I don't do studying and experimenting. I just take most scientific conclusions on "faith." For example: Does oxygen (that lifegiving gas that sustains regular combustion) exist in the way that modern science claims? I believe so, but I'll never do an experiment to prove it. I just accept it.
If you *do* manage to find counter-evidence or come up with a better explanation for something, other scientists will be eager to verify and learn from your findings.
That's not borne out by the history of science. Scientists, because they're human, have the ability to form pet ideas and believe them after evidence should compel them to give them up. For example, England's mathematics fell WAY behind that of Europe because too many mathematicians got too wound up about the Newton/Leibniz calculus controversy.
With religion, you're expected to believe what they say simply because they said it,
Either you're taking this on faith, or you haven't done enough research, because my religion, as one example, teaches pretty much the opposite of that.
which is exactly the opposite of science.
I'll agree that believing just because you're told to is unscientific. It's just not true that all religions teach that.
By definition there isn't any evidence to examine,
Not strictly true. There may not be any legal evidence or scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence.
because it's all about faith.
See, I think all is an exaggeration.
Preachers just grab whatever parts of the bible support their preconceived notions.
Look around. A lot of "scientists" do that same kind of thing. It would be unscientific to
Making up (or "believing", or getting handed down from ancient texts) some absurd, senseless claims about the world being under effect from an unseen being who "created" a universe larger than human conception to play a sick version of SimCity with us to justify a predefined ending in which billions of people get sadistic torture in hell "for ever" because they "believe" otherwise, is just stupid. It's not just about coherence - it's way beyond that. It's comical. The whole idea of "belief" itself defies reason. And when it involves gods with the minds of six-year-olds, it really does not make sense for educated, mature people to listen to anyone trying to speak with these "beliefs" as a platform. When I see thinkgs like this quote, I can't help but wonder: Is this person really that ignorant about religion, that they accept this simplistic inaccurate strawman view as real, or are the being deliberately dishonest?
I know that there are both kinds, and a spectrum in between, but I still wonder each time.
But why do you automatically equate drinking with getting wasted? This is the problem - the mainstream US mentality seems to be that alcohol = abuse... I would agree that having a drink is not the same a being drunk, but a lot of people don't understand that you're impaired long before you're drunk. So, when it comes to driving, alcohol does = abuse.
While I've understood the feelings and reasoning behind this claim (i.e. that the US would forcibly to maintain their bases on foreign non-enemy soil) from before my first post in this thread, I have yet to see any support for it. So, while the support for the contrary claim (i.e. that the US would acquiese if asked to remove all their bases in other countries) may not be strong, it is much stronger than any claim that the US would forcefully maintain those bases.
I don't know you, Elemenope, and I don't know ImpShial, so I don't know if it's your habit to insist so strongly against available evidence, without actual evidence to support your opinion, but you should both know that it isn't very convincing to me.
Yes, seriously. As Descalzo reminds us, all the evidence we have suggests that we'd respect their soveriegnty in their own country. In WWII we seemed to be pretty good at respecting the neutrality of countries that chose neutrality.
Now, if it was apparent that it was just a ploy, and a hosting country really did break the treaty in order to "change sides" to ally themselves with our enemy (this version of you hypothetical situation has us in a war), that's substantially different from your original scenario (all countries decide to terminate the treaties at the same time, for some reason).
I'm curious if you believe the US would roll over if the elected leaders of Germany, Japan, Turkey, et al. places we have permanent bases decided, for whatever reason, to retract their hospitality for our troops and materiel. If there were any country that had made such a decision, perhaps we could use them for an example.
We're in luck! The Philipines, years ago, chose not to renew the treaty allowing US military bases. No repercussioins.
1. Issue: VD Answer: The same as for free sex, use a damn condom FYI: Contrary to popular to popular belief, condoms, even when they work, don't prevent the transmission of all STDs (They are VERY effective at preventing the transmission of some of those diseases.). Though I'll admit that limiting the spread of disease would be a pleasant side-effect of eliminating prostitution, I'll agree with you here and say that, to me, it doesn't seem to be to be sufficient justification.
2. Degradation/Objectification of Women Answer: This is because prostitution is considered immoral and dirty. If it were an honored role, and women had the power to control it for themselves, it wouldn't cause any sort of degredation Um, no. Treating women as objects objectifies them. Buying and selling sex (in some sense the essense of femaleness, or maleness) necessarily tends to objectify. Prostitution is both a cause of and an effect of the objectification of women.
ANYTHING that you regularly buy tends to become objectified. (Tangent: Also one of the problems with widespread paid childcare.)
3. It breaks up families Answer: so does any kind of lying or cheating, whether or not there's money involved. Don't blame prostitution, stop lying! Yes, a married person can't have sex with someone other than their spouse without lying (part of marriage is the promise not to have sex with someone else). And I agree that lying to your spouse, even if they know it, is a bad thing. But single people using prostitutes is bad, too. It creates bad habits, and incorrect impressions of the role of sex in a relationship. These are some of the reasons prostitution is immoral.
Also, the acceptance of prostitution by a society weakens the societal pressure that strengthens families in general. This is a bad thing, and a very good reason for making prostitution illegal.
---------------
You have cause and effect mixed up. Extra-marital sex is immoral because it is harmful, not the other way around.
The evidence is all around you. The urges and procreative abilities associated with sex are powerful. Even a cursory study of biology, sociology, religion, politics, archeology or anthropology makes it obvious that sex is not merely another pleasurable activity (though it often is pleasurable). Treating it as such is asking for trouble.
If you can't already see that sex is not just another sport/recreation/pastime, then no additional evidence is likely to convince you. If you do see that sex is not another sport etc. and still think that treating it as such is healthy, then again, no amount of evidence is likely to convinvince you. (Which is why my first answer contained no more justification that did your original perspective on prostitution.)
--------------- This post has no intent to mock or insult. It is just a brief attempt at explanation of some basics.
Some of my previous posts (not my first reply), on the other hand, did have some mocking tone and intent, and I apologize. Disagreement and disaproval are no excuse for being insulting, even if noone is hurt.
I claimed that prostitution was unhealthy. You cited an unhealthy society that encouraged prostitution.
That wasn't the kind of reasoning that I was thinking of when I claimed non-religious reasons for thinking that prostitution is unhealthy, but pretty good anyway.
In spite of the many good things we owe the ancient Greeks, using ancient Greece as a model of a healthy society isn't a good idea.
Women in ancient greece were generally regarded as inferior and had almost no rights. Some Greeks (Spartans) killed babies they didn't want. Savery was common enough that some scholars think there may have been more slaves than non-slaves.
Just because it has been acceptable to some doesn't mean it was ever healthy.
And, as long as we're making assumptions about each other's basis of opinion: I suspect you have some unhealthy behaviors that you like to justify.
An excellent example is prostitution, without a moral component defined by religious values there is no justification for laws against prostitution and thus there should be none. Actually, there is plenty of justification on entirely practical grounds. Prostitution is harmful to the prostitute, to the "customer," to their friends and families, and to the society that accepts it.
Did you check out dhmo.org? Do you see the similarities between that site and msgtruth.org and the dana.org article linked below (and above)?
Of course too much can be harmful. Too much of anything can be harmful. (Have you ever hyperventilated?)
"Too much can be harmful." is very different from the impression that msgtruth.org tries to give, and very different from the impression that the ggp tried to give.
I looked at http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=7376. It had plenty of language in it like
the vast quantities of it that were supposed to be held back by the dam Nope, don't trust it. I tend not to trust the "science" of anyone that goes out of their way to select the most inflamatory adjectives and alarming analogies that they can.
You may want to check this page to see a different perspective. Most interesting to me is in the second paragraph on the page.
Glutamate is a naturally occurring amino acid that is found in nearly all foods and
The human body also produces glutamate and it plays an essential role in normal body functioning. So, glutamate isn't inherently bad for you.
Sodium isn't inherently bad for you either.
Put them together and what do you get? Something that splits up into those two harmless pieces almost immediately.
So, you're suggesting that, possibly, the bar at Google is set high, and the people that hire have the natural tendency to assume that people that think like them are smarter than those that disagree?
Will you think I'm dumb if I don't think that's possible?
Ridiculous people deserve ridicule... Thanks, but we know that, just because you've given us all permission to make fun of you, doesn't mean you won't get mad when we do.
(Just because I'm not funny, doesn't mean I'm not joking.)
Slashdot Mirror
The "soft" sciences (psychology, economics, etc.) have a hard time with your first principle. (We don't like to test things that, if true, make people suffer.) Which may be why they aren't nearly as predictive as we'd like them to be.
Mathematics doesn't really seem to work that way at all. (I have an M.S. in math.) A theorem in math isn't anything like a theory in physics, as far as "proof" goes. Testing something in math isn't the same, either. Clearly we don't all go out and independently verify every finding we're told. However, I don't think this is the same as taking it on faith. I think we come to trust science because we're surrounded by results which match the predictions of scientific theories. I can't see how something similar could happen with religion because I'm not aware of any religions making testable predictions. Also, maybe you could elaborate on your reference to non-scientific evidence. Maybe this ties into your statement that your religion doesn't expect you to believe simply because they said so. I think the biggest reason why the evidence I have can't be considered scientific or legal evidence, is that it's pretty non-transferable. Unmistakable feelings, "coincidences" beyond coincidence, lifestyle direction that really does make me happier, predictions that are always accurate but too personal to share, things like that. So, the evidence is real, just not very shareable.
Now, you don't know me, so I'm not really a very credible source. Even if you DID know me, it still wouldn't matter, you'd still have to find out for yourself, doing your own "experiments."
How do you find out? Some examples: (the second one relates to your concern that not all religions can be right.)
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/32 (starting with verse 26)
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 (how Joseph Smith "experimented")
Do You Know?
Ye May Know.
All through this thread you keep saying religious ideas are just as valid as scientific ones, but that's simply not the case.
As much as I'd accept that religious ideas might not be as scientifically valid as scienctific ideas, universally less valid is a pretty big claim to make without first proving something about religion.
Ideas based on facts are superior to fiction and superstition.
I'd totally agree with that. Unfortunately, way too many "facts" aren't facts.
Science isn't true because it says so.
I'd accept that. To me saying "science is true" is about as helpful as saying "swimming is true."
It lays out a set of principles designed for making objective, logical assessments of the observable world.
I'd also agree with that.
If you disagree with any of those basic tenets, feel free to enlighten us;
As much as I basically agree with your definition of science, I don't know which list of tenets (doctrines, beliefs, dogmas) you're referring to.
but we can all see what they are
When you're advocating scientific methods, you shouldn't try to prove things by saying "we can all see." I think that attempting to find/create such a list that would be (fairly) universally accepted (and proving that acceptance, of course) might help you see how non-monolithic science is.
and judge whether or not they achieve their goal of objectivity.
Make a list of hot moral/political topics (I'll start you off):
Divorce, Slavery, Racism, Global Warming, Environmentalism, Communism, Democracy, Homosexuality, Divine Right of Kings, Class Structures, etc.
For any of these topics, was (is) science (or scientific concensus) coherent about them BEFORE societal opinions changed? No.
The scientific method IS objective. Unfortunately for the objectivity of science, the method is applied by inherently non-objective beings.
On top of this foundation is a mountain of research. You're free to read reports, examine evidence, and conduct experiments yourself if there's anything you're skeptical of.
Sure, but for most of it, I don't do studying and experimenting. I just take most scientific conclusions on "faith." For example: Does oxygen (that lifegiving gas that sustains regular combustion) exist in the way that modern science claims? I believe so, but I'll never do an experiment to prove it. I just accept it.
If you *do* manage to find counter-evidence or come up with a better explanation for something, other scientists will be eager to verify and learn from your findings.
That's not borne out by the history of science. Scientists, because they're human, have the ability to form pet ideas and believe them after evidence should compel them to give them up. For example, England's mathematics fell WAY behind that of Europe because too many mathematicians got too wound up about the Newton/Leibniz calculus controversy.
With religion, you're expected to believe what they say simply because they said it,
Either you're taking this on faith, or you haven't done enough research, because my religion, as one example, teaches pretty much the opposite of that.
which is exactly the opposite of science.
I'll agree that believing just because you're told to is unscientific. It's just not true that all religions teach that.
By definition there isn't any evidence to examine,
Not strictly true. There may not be any legal evidence or scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence.
because it's all about faith.
See, I think all is an exaggeration.
Preachers just grab whatever parts of the bible support their preconceived notions.
Look around. A lot of "scientists" do that same kind of thing. It would be unscientific to
I know that there are both kinds, and a spectrum in between, but I still wonder each time.
Then, when you fund a scholarship, you can set different criteria.
When I fund a scholarship, my criteria will likely be different than yours and those in the article.
Also, children (and adults) DON'T learn from their mistakes, unless there are real consequences.
So, when it comes to driving, alcohol does = abuse.
While I've understood the feelings and reasoning behind this claim (i.e. that the US would forcibly to maintain their bases on foreign non-enemy soil) from before my first post in this thread, I have yet to see any support for it. So, while the support for the contrary claim (i.e. that the US would acquiese if asked to remove all their bases in other countries) may not be strong, it is much stronger than any claim that the US would forcefully maintain those bases.
I don't know you, Elemenope, and I don't know ImpShial, so I don't know if it's your habit to insist so strongly against available evidence, without actual evidence to support your opinion, but you should both know that it isn't very convincing to me.
Yes, seriously.
As Descalzo reminds us, all the evidence we have suggests that we'd respect their soveriegnty in their own country. In WWII we seemed to be pretty good at respecting the neutrality of countries that chose neutrality.
Now, if it was apparent that it was just a ploy, and a hosting country really did break the treaty in order to "change sides" to ally themselves with our enemy (this version of you hypothetical situation has us in a war), that's substantially different from your original scenario (all countries decide to terminate the treaties at the same time, for some reason).
I think the US would take it just fine.
Though, to be fair, I think it EXTREMELY unlikely the US will have to worry about it.
We're in luck!
The Philipines, years ago, chose not to renew the treaty allowing US military bases.
No repercussioins.
Answer: The same as for free sex, use a damn condom FYI: Contrary to popular to popular belief, condoms, even when they work, don't prevent the transmission of all STDs (They are VERY effective at preventing the transmission of some of those diseases.). Though I'll admit that limiting the spread of disease would be a pleasant side-effect of eliminating prostitution, I'll agree with you here and say that, to me, it doesn't seem to be to be sufficient justification. 2. Degradation/Objectification of Women
Answer: This is because prostitution is considered immoral and dirty. If it were an honored role, and women had the power to control it for themselves, it wouldn't cause any sort of degredation Um, no.
Treating women as objects objectifies them.
Buying and selling sex (in some sense the essense of femaleness, or maleness) necessarily tends to objectify. Prostitution is both a cause of and an effect of the objectification of women.
ANYTHING that you regularly buy tends to become objectified. (Tangent: Also one of the problems with widespread paid childcare.) 3. It breaks up families
Answer: so does any kind of lying or cheating, whether or not there's money involved. Don't blame prostitution, stop lying! Yes, a married person can't have sex with someone other than their spouse without lying (part of marriage is the promise not to have sex with someone else). And I agree that lying to your spouse, even if they know it, is a bad thing. But single people using prostitutes is bad, too. It creates bad habits, and incorrect impressions of the role of sex in a relationship. These are some of the reasons prostitution is immoral.
Also, the acceptance of prostitution by a society weakens the societal pressure that strengthens families in general. This is a bad thing, and a very good reason for making prostitution illegal.
---------------
You have cause and effect mixed up. Extra-marital sex is immoral because it is harmful, not the other way around.
The evidence is all around you. The urges and procreative abilities associated with sex are powerful. Even a cursory study of biology, sociology, religion, politics, archeology or anthropology makes it obvious that sex is not merely another pleasurable activity (though it often is pleasurable). Treating it as such is asking for trouble.
If you can't already see that sex is not just another sport/recreation/pastime, then no additional evidence is likely to convince you. If you do see that sex is not another sport etc. and still think that treating it as such is healthy, then again, no amount of evidence is likely to convinvince you. (Which is why my first answer contained no more justification that did your original perspective on prostitution.)
---------------
This post has no intent to mock or insult. It is just a brief attempt at explanation of some basics.
Some of my previous posts (not my first reply), on the other hand, did have some mocking tone and intent, and I apologize. Disagreement and disaproval are no excuse for being insulting, even if noone is hurt.
Sorry.
---------------
End of Line
I claimed that prostitution was unhealthy.
You cited an unhealthy society that encouraged prostitution.
That wasn't the kind of reasoning that I was thinking of when I claimed non-religious reasons for thinking that prostitution is unhealthy, but pretty good anyway.
Thanks!
In spite of the many good things we owe the ancient Greeks, using ancient Greece as a model of a healthy society isn't a good idea.
Women in ancient greece were generally regarded as inferior and had almost no rights. Some Greeks (Spartans) killed babies they didn't want. Savery was common enough that some scholars think there may have been more slaves than non-slaves.
Just because it has been acceptable to some doesn't mean it was ever healthy.
And, as long as we're making assumptions about each other's basis of opinion: I suspect you have some unhealthy behaviors that you like to justify.
Note: I object to spending public moneys on Jackson Pollock.
If there were any great art featuring such Noodles, I'd be all for it.
Unfortunately, the Noodler hasn't yet inspired great art.
Now, if the art is placed in the public building for the purpose of encouraging religion, that would be bad.
Is Hyperion connected to Moller?
Well, if you'd used my entire reasoning you'd have a better argument, except that nitroglycerine doesn't simply split up into nitrogen and glycerine.
Of course too much can be harmful. Too much of anything can be harmful. (Have you ever hyperventilated?)
"Too much can be harmful." is very different from the impression that msgtruth.org tries to give, and very different from the impression that the ggp tried to give.
I looked at http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=7376.
It had plenty of language in it like the vast quantities of it that were supposed to be held back by the dam Nope, don't trust it. I tend not to trust the "science" of anyone that goes out of their way to select the most inflamatory adjectives and alarming analogies that they can.
Sodium isn't inherently bad for you either.
Put them together and what do you get?
Something that splits up into those two harmless pieces almost immediately.
Compare www.msgtruth.org to www.dhmo.org.
So, you're suggesting that, possibly, the bar at Google is set high, and the people that hire have the natural tendency to assume that people that think like them are smarter than those that disagree?
Will you think I'm dumb if I don't think that's possible?
I pasted that thing into google, and 4 links on the first page (including the top link) appeared to be to pages with the Gettysburg Address.
You say (and bold), "all else being equal," and then compare the US to Japan.
(Just because I'm not funny, doesn't mean I'm not joking.)