10 commandments for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

So he paraphrased me correctly apart from the bit where he didn't?

It's a bullshit misquote. It's presented as what I said. And it isn't what I said

The point is, anyone who would be arsed to even read this thread (probably no more than half a dozen folks) knows it wasn't a verbatim quote, nor would any reasonable person think it was intended to be. Davin was paraphrasing what you said, admittedly, in a very sarcastic manner. I can see why that part would piss you off because, as I said, you would never admit that you were wrong. It's simply not what you do here.

[psychodiva]

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

Right, but think about it the other way. Without the empirical observation it isn't the naturalistic scientific method.

So is that what you are limiting the scientific method to: mere observation? No testing, which would entail employing logic and, very possibly, mathematics? I have to say, that doesn't sound like science to me.

thomastwo wrote

I'm not clear. Do you think you can you get knowledge from math and logic absent empirical observation? I think this is a yes or no question.

You seem to be hedging on this issue. Why?

I think you're trying to limit the scientific method to mere observation in order to bolster your claim that there is another method for acquiring new knowledge about the ways in which things in the natural world operate. It's total bullshit, and you know it.

What knowledge have you gained by discerning that 2 + 2= 4 if it's not otherwise connected to something concrete in the natural world? And logic is only useful if it's connected to some other piece of verifiable knowledge. So, based on that, I would have to say no to your question.

thomastwo wrote

So, if empiricism is not the only way to acquire knowledge. What are the other ways?

Again, I never asserted that the scientific method is about mere observation. That's your claim, so you have to answer your own question, if you can.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

So is that what you are limiting the scientific method to: mere observation? No testing, which would entail employing logic and, very possibly, mathematics? I have to say, that doesn't sound like science to me.

Nope, I'm not limiting the scientific method to observation. With that red herring that you invented out of the way, perhaps you'll have a go at just answering the original question.

Irreligious wrote

I think you're trying to limit the scientific method to mere observation in order to bolster your claim that there is another method for acquiring new knowledge about the ways in which things in the natural world operate. It's total bullshit, and you know it.

No, I'm not limiting the scientific method to "mere" observation. What I'm saying is that math and logic can stand on their own as methods of obtaining knowledge without the use of the scientific method.

Irreligious wrote

What knowledge have you gained by discerning that 2 + 2= 4 if it's not otherwise connected to something concrete in the natural world? And logic is only useful if it's connected to some other piece of verifiable knowledge. So, based on that, I would have to say no to your question.

So, to be clear (and I'm repeating your argument back to you in my own words) you think that 2 + 2 does not equal 4 in an abstract sense? 2 + 2 only equals 4 if we are talking about bananas or some physical object that can be verified. Correct?

And a bonus question for you. Can the scientific method prove that 2 + 2 = 4? (Hint the answer is no. So how do we know that 2 +2 really does equal 4 if the scientific method is the only source of knowledge?)

Irreligious wrote

Again, I never asserted that the scientific method is about mere observation. That's your claim, so you have to answer your own question, if you can.

I think you are confused with this answer. You said that empiricism was not the only way to acquire knowledge. So, I'm asking you what are the other ways?

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

The point is, anyone who would be arsed to even read this thread (probably no more than half a dozen folks) knows it wasn't a verbatim quote, nor would any reasonable person think it was intended to be. Davin was paraphrasing what you said, admittedly, in a very sarcastic manner. I can see why that part would piss you off because, as I said, you would never admit that you were wrong. It's simply not what you do here.

The point is it was a misquote. I can't be bothered to deal with people who twist words that way.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

Nope, I'm not limiting the scientific method to observation. With that red herring that you invented out of the way, perhaps you'll have a go at just answering the original question.

It's not a red herring on my part. It's what you're attempting to do when you seek to divorce logic and mathematics from the process of scientific inquiry and discovery. Besides, I already answered your question and the answer was no, I do not think mathematics and logic, when they are disconnected from any practical applications, can stand on their own as methods for obtaining any additional knowledge about the natural universe. Perhaps, you can provide me with an example where you think they can? I'm open to a demonstration of this alleged phenomenon.

thomastwo wrote

No, I'm not limiting the scientific method to "mere" observation. What I'm saying is that math and logic can stand on their own as methods of obtaining knowledge without the use of the scientific method.

Then demonstrate it. Lay some logic on me that's not connected to anything and tell me what you learned.

thomastwo wrote

So, to be clear (and I'm repeating your argument back to you in my own words) you think that 2 + 2 does not equal 4 in an abstract sense? 2 + 2 only equals 4 if we are talking about bananas or some physical object that can be verified. Correct?

Your words differ a lot from my words. I actually asked you a question to which you have yet to respond: What is the value of knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 if you have no intention of ever connecting that knowledge to anything practical? How does it lead to additional knowledge if that's as far as you're going to take that information?

thomastwo wrote

And a bonus question for you. Can the scientific method prove that 2 + 2 = 4? (Hint the answer is no. So how do we know that 2 +2 really does equal 4 if the scientific method is the only source of knowledge?)

Are you forgetting that it is my contention that mathematics and logic are intrinsic parts of the scientific method? One couldn't possibly test an assumption without them, for instance.

thomastwo wrote

I think you are confused with this answer. You said that empiricism was not the only way to acquire knowledge. So, I'm asking you what are the other ways?

No. What I said was that the scientific method entails more than merely observing. I'm not divorcing mathematics and logic from that process; you are.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

The point is it was a misquote. I can't be bothered to deal with people who twist words that way.

Fine. But you're no stranger to doing that yourself if you think it will bolster your argument, T2.

[Davin]

thomastwo wrote

So he paraphrased me correctly apart from the bit where he didn't?

It's a bullshit misquote. It's presented as what I said. And it isn't what I said

You're right thomastwo, I incorrectly represented you as honest, my bad. I take it back that you admitted that you were wrong, sorry about that. I'll not again make the mistake of portraying you better, smarter and more honest than you are.

This correction should fix up my mistake: You're an ignorant, dishonest idiot that claimed to know better than anyone on this forum what science is, then stated several times that things that are science, aren't science.

I know it must be very embarrassing for you to have gone around telling everyone that you have superior knowledge of science than everyone on this forum then to say something so incorrect as to say that maths and logic are not science. Unfortunately though, they are sciences and you were wrong. So you can either just admit that you were wrong and look slightly better, or continute trying to pretend that what you said (several times in several posts), wasn't wrong for various hand wavings and continue to look stupid... you're choosing to look ignorant of what science is, it's your choice.

[Irreligious]

I've noticed that many theists who post on the internet seek to diminish the value of the scientific method as a vehicle for confirming assumptions (or debunking them) and acquiring new knowledge. Apparently, they think that doing so will somehow elevate allegations of divine revelation and deductive reasoning (absent the required evidence for making a deducement, of course) as alternative methods for acquiring information.

I recall Lily once asking how we know that we know what we know? I thought it was a strange question, since I was sure she already knew that there is a pretty rigid process for acquiring knowledge that is objective and verifiable. Apparently, she didn't.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

It's not a red herring on my part. It's what you're attempting to do when you seek to divorce logic and mathematics from the process of scientific inquiry and discovery.

I have not sought to divorce logic and mathematics from the process of scientific inquiry and discovery. At any point.

Irreligious wrote

Besides, I already answered your question and the answer was no, I do not think mathematics and logic, when they are disconnected from any practical applications, can stand on their own as methods for obtaining any additional knowledge about the natural universe. Perhaps, you can provide me with an example where you think they can? I'm open to a demonstration of this alleged phenomenon.

Here's one. We only know about the big bang because of theoretical physics based on mathematics. That proof (note proof, not theory) starts from some falsifiable scientific theories and works from them. But, we could never know about the big bang using the scientific method as we can not verifiably observe the past. Only through mathematics.

Irreligious wrote

Then demonstrate it. Lay some logic on me that's not connected to anything and tell me what you learned.

Sure. I know as a fact that if some first proposition is true and some second proposition is identical to the first proposition that the second proposition is also true.

It's a little ironic that you are trying to use rational argument to show that rationalism does not generate knowledge. I would have thought that each and every one of your arguments would provide empirical evidence to the standard of the scientific method. After all you think that's the only way to acquire knowledge.

Irreligious wrote

Your words differ a lot from my words. I actually asked you a question to which you have yet to respond: What is the value of knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 if you have no intention of ever connecting that knowledge to anything practical? How does it lead to additional knowledge if that's as far as you're going to take that information?

First, I'm glad you implicitly acknowledge in your question that we know that 2+2 =4 in the abstract sense. Of course we do. I don't know why you continue to attempt to deny it.

Whether that leads to additional knowledge or has practical application is irrelevant. 2 + 2 = 4 is still a piece of knowledge in itself.

But it does have a practical application. If you and I are faced with the task of adding up the already verified number of bananas in two crates I will be able to use rationalism to generate the piece of knowledge that the sum of the number of bananas is the correct answer. You on the other hand who deny math as a source of knowledge other than as part of the scientific method are going to have to get a friend and count them one by one in order to get a verified objective count. Good luck with that.

Irreligious wrote

Are you forgetting that it is my contention that mathematics and logic are intrinsic parts of the scientific method? One couldn't possibly test an assumption without them, for instance.

I didn't forget. But what does your answer have to do with my questions? Can the scientific method prove that 2 + 2 = 4? And if it can't how do we know that 2 + 2 = 4?

Irreligious wrote

No. What I said was that the scientific method entails more than merely observing. I'm not divorcing mathematics and logic from that process; you are.

No, I haven't divorced math and logic from the scientific method.

[thomastwo]

Davin wrote

You're right thomastwo, I incorrectly represented you as honest, my bad. I take it back that you admitted that you were wrong, sorry about that. I'll not again make the mistake of portraying you better, smarter and more honest than you are.

This correction should fix up my mistake: You're an ignorant, dishonest idiot that claimed to know better than anyone on this forum what science is, then stated several times that things that are science, aren't science.

I know it must be very embarrassing for you to have gone around telling everyone that you have superior knowledge of science than everyone on this forum then to say something so incorrect as to say that maths and logic are not science. Unfortunately though, they are sciences and you were wrong. So you can either just admit that you were wrong and look slightly better, or continute trying to pretend that what you said (several times in several posts), wasn't wrong for various hand wavings and continue to look stupid... you're choosing to look ignorant of what science is, it's your choice.

I already answered this point for you previously. But you chose to concentrate on misquoting me rather than attempting to engage with my response.

[Davin]

Yeah, Irreligious, it seems like if they can pretend that faith is just as good science, then their illogical assertions are just as good as things discovered through the scientific method. It also seems like they can never admit to any errors.

I would like to know though, how the devaluing of scientific knowledge helps out their case. Even if science were complete hokum, their faith would still be worse than nothing.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

I've noticed that many theists who post on the internet seek to diminish the value of the scientific method as a vehicle for confirming assumptions (or debunking them) and acquiring new knowledge. Apparently, they think that doing so will somehow elevate allegations of divine revelation and deductive reasoning (absent the required evidence for making a deducement, of course) as alternative methods for acquiring information.

I recall Lily once asking how we know that we know what we know? I thought it was a strange question, since I was sure she already knew that there is a pretty rigid process for acquiring knowledge that is objective and verifiable. Apparently, she didn't.

You misunderstand the point. The point is not that the scientific method is unreliable. It's clearly reliable. There is no reason that a theist would need to argue that point. It's not like science belongs or is a credit to atheism. It's a shared human acheivement. Certainly the mere act of having no belief in a god says nothing about science.

But there are two points. The first is the idea that science is the only way of generating knowledge. It's patently untrue but is clung to by many atheists, including you. I understand why. It allows you to close down many possibilities for ways of thinking about what is a reasonable belief. Unfortunately for you it is an unwarranted short cut.

The second point is that there is a very little, reasonable, leap of faith required for the scientific method to work. That is, that the laws of the universe are unchanging past, present and future. Many atheists want to deny that their worldview involves any aspect of faith, but that is not true.

[thomastwo]

duplicate post.

[Davin]

thomastwo wrote

I already answered this point for you previously. But you chose to concentrate on misquoting me rather than attempting to engage with my response.

Well this is just another blatent lie, good work keeping up your dishonesty

You said this in defense of your blatent error: http://ravingatheists.com/forum/show...&postcount=157

I said this in response to your pathertic defense directly engaging your response:
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/show...&postcount=163

And you replied with this complete avoidence:
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/show...&postcount=164

FYI, since you seem to lack a lot knowledge (scientific and otherwise), the square brackets are proper and are not misquotes. They honestly let the reader know that the author has changed part of the quote. Not a misquote because I honestly let you know (by using the proper symbols for such), that I had shortened you inane bantering. Now when we look at your quoting of what I said, do we see the square brackets indicating that you've modified some words from my quote or do we see that you merely misquoted me? Oh, you merely misquoted me. Which means that you're guilty of misquoting, and I am not. But good work on continuing to show your ignorance and demonstrating your hypocrisy.