Believe in science & ethics
-
when a total stranger comes to monkey andrew and give it a big slap on its face, it would say "WTF is he doing? There is no scientific proof that he should do this!"
-
In summary, what is the attitude that one must take towards Science and the Scientific Method?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
19 September 2007 · 09:41 AM - page 5Only stupid people believe that science is 100% correct and only people that are more stupid believe that there is anything else more believable than scientific discoveries.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt: 19 September 2007 · 09:55 AM - page 5Yup, I totally agree with you.
And as I said before, the scientific methodology is not 100% foolproof (becos it is a tool of "imperfect humans"), but it is still much better (and more trustworthy) than other methods of studying the world around us.
People like soul_rage love to slam science, but can they come up with a better alternative methodology in studying the natural world? Nope, science may not be 100% foolproof but it is definitely more reliable than other mental tools mankind can employ in understanding our universe.
In the Scientific Method, proof and evidence rules supreme and if there are no proof and evidence, at the most the Scientists will say "I don't know" and will never jump to delusional conclusions like some people here.Originally posted by stupidissmart: 07 October 2007 · 11:34 AMWell there r limitations in science, but it is the best we have. U can claim science only provide 2% of the answer but evolution is part of the 2% and it is really a fact. -
a special monkey told me that one should use science to inform on the decision to build a casino in the community's neighbourhood. Guess which monkey said this? -
wah... so delusional... until they believe with all their hearts what they imagined... (otherwise, I guessed they would have provided the evidence, but a delusion in their head is impossible to produce evidence for).
I think a suggestion that they visit IMH is not too rude and insulting, but might even save their live... people that hold conversations with monkeys, are good candidates for IHM.... -
a monkey finally admits it is a monkey.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:people that hold conversations with monkeys -
Delusional
IMH -
Peace, peace, peace...please....
This thread would have been a very good intellectual exercise if not for all the name-callings and flaming. Flame would only result in counter-flame, and at the end of the day is unconstructive.
I may disagree with the stance of the counter-rationalist, but I nevertheless feel he/she has the right to his/her opinion in an open debate.
I may attack the belief, but I will not attack the believer.
Let's look at it this way.....
There are many schools of thought in the world and certainly none of them can claim absolute perfection and 100% certainty. No science, religion, social science, art, spiritual movement, etc can claim perfection.
I have friends who are theists (from dif religions), deists, atheists and agnostics. We may debate passionately, but at the end of the day we should not let our ideologies get in the way of friendship.
I am a strong supporter of rationality and science, but I have no personal hatred against people of faith or even superstition (unless you are a fundamentalist who believes in perpetrating violence against those who don't follow your ideology).
If I criticise your beliefs, I do so only because I am exercising my intellectual rights to do so and wish to share with you that in this world there is an alternative to supernaturalism.
Of course I'm not so naive as to believe I can convince the other party...because I know that people cherish nothing more deeply than their personal beliefs (especially if they were brought up in an environment that encourage such beliefs).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, just to clarify one point:
I see religion as distinct from supernaturalism
A person can be a theist [believer in god(s)] and a believer in supernaturalism, but alternatively.....
A person may believe in god(s) but yet not believe in supernatural happenings that violate natural laws. An example is deism (which accepts god(s) but rejects supernatural events including even scriptural accounts): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
And....
Normally, an atheist does not believe in god(s) and also not in supernaturalism, but alternatively...
An atheist who rejects the idea of god(s) can nevertheless believe in some aspects of the supernatural (eg. psychic events, ghosts, spirit possession, etc)....
Finally here is an interesting (and I believe true) thought:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (by Stephen F Roberts)
Which basically means that everyone is an atheist....
i.e. One may be a believer in the monotheistic God, but by rejecting the other gods in other religions (such as Zeus, Ra, Thor, Odin, etc, etc), you too are an atheist in the eyes of the other party! -
Just to add on to the my previous post...
Although I may accept counter-arguments against rationality in an open debate among adults, there are 2 areas that I strongly feel that beliefs in supernaturalism/theism should not interfere in:
(1) Governance.
Only a secular government can practise true democracy. A theocracy will always be biased towards a particular (non-rational) belief system only.
(2) Education of youths.
Kids should be given a sound grounding in the sciences and other rational forms of scholastic pursuits. Exposure to supernaturalism at a young age will only mislead their inexperienced minds.
Proponents of the supernatural should ethically only push their beliefs to adults (who are free to make up their own minds) and not try to foist them onto kids.
(See my prev post about the Council of Europe's wise decision to bar creationism in classroom.)
In fact, I would say that a secular system for governance and education is essential for the stability and progress of a modern democracy! -
Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
I reserve namecalling only for superstitious (zealots) believers of Science. I think these people bring shame to Science.
Just to add on to the my previous post...
Although I may accept counter-arguments against rationality in an open debate among adults, there are 2 areas that I strongly feel that beliefs in supernaturalism/theism should not interfere in:
(1) Governance.
Only a secular government can practise true democracy. A theocracy will always be biased towards a particular (non-rational) belief system only.
(2) Education of youths.
Kids should be given a sound grounding in the sciences and other rational forms of scholastic pursuits. Exposure to supernaturalism at a young age will only mislead their inexperienced minds.
Proponents of the supernatural should ethically only push their beliefs to adults (who are free to make up their own minds) and not try to foist them onto kids.
(See my prev post about the Council of Europe's wise decision to bar creationism in classroom.)
[b]In fact, I would say that a secular system for governance and education is essential for the stability and progress of a modern democracy!
[/b]
Coming back to your points, they are valid, and as I said, I respect your points. Similarly, I do not attack you the person.
I also say again that I am a Science person as well, just that once I studied astronomy, I see the limitations of Science which is only able to explain a negligible part of the universe.
I wish to bring up the points below:
1) Supernatural does not just relate to ghosts, afterlife, and all things that you think belong to 7th Month. I think most of you think that way.
Supernatural is also a classification for explanations which invoke explanative contructs that in principle are beyond human conception, understanding or verification
So perhaps in a loose way, you can say dark matter and dark energy (which are proven to exist by Science) are supernatural in a way, because its beyond our understanding what their composition and characteristics are.
2) Education of youths
I agree only to a certain degree what you mentioned.
Science may give a sound grounding to youths, but it is also Science that will limit their scope, their ability to go beyond that, which can be seen, hear or touched. The current achievements of Science are mostly materialistic and physical.
Yet, since there is no better way to start than by Science, and since I cannot see any other alternative (as you mentioned, exposure to supernaturalism may mislead them), then I will have to agree with you.
By the way, we were taught in secondary school that Newton's Laws of Gravity is totally correct. It was the truth and nothing but the truth. We were told to accept what was taught to us from Primary to JC.
It was only in University, that we are allowed to fully question. -
some more ideas about Supernatural which does not just talk about things that go bum in the night
Supernatural is a "another part of a larger nature"
This is a view largely held by monists and process theorists. According to this view, the "supernatural" is just a term for parts of nature that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand, similar to how sound and lightning used to be mysterious forces to science. Materialist monists believe that the "supernatural" are just things in the physical universe not yet understood by modern science while idealist monists reject the concept of "supernatural" on the grounds that they believe "nature" is the non-material. Neutral monists maintain that "nature" and "supernature" are artificial categories as they believe that the material and non-material are both either equally real and simultaneously existent, or illusions that stem from the human mind's interpretation of reality. -
i found a new love in my life : Costa Rica ! -
I'd summarise..........Originally posted by soul_rage:I see the limitations of Science which is only able to explain a negligible part of the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Set 1: With regards to the capability of science -
Belief 1:
Some people believe that science can only explain a miniscule part of the universe. Some would add on and say that what science cannot explain, Man is not meant to know, or that our limited thought capacity cannot comprehend. Even given all the time and effort, not all the mysteries in the universe can be resolved.
Belief 2:
Others believe in the sufficiency of science....that what we do not understand yet, science will one day uncover the answers....and that by believing in limitations in science, our capacity to discover the undiscovered will be handicapped. Given enough time and effort, all mysteries in the universe can be resolved.
------------------------------------------------------------
also
------------------------------------------------------------
Set 2: With regards to the current mysteries behind the current unknowns -
Belief 1:
Some believe (whether rightly or wrongly) in supernatural agency behind what science has yet to (or cannot) discover.
Belief 2:
While others believe that it is only an unknown natural agency behind what science has yet to (or cannot) discover.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I may support Beliefs 2 for both sets, just as you may support Beliefs 1 for both sets. Yes, at face-value, Belief 2 of Set 1 may seem implausible (and even arrogant), but some would say it is not impossible for Mankind to discover all the mysteries of the universe given enough time, effort and ingenuity.
But......
We have to admit that both our positions are based on "beliefs" and do not rely on "evidence". Either of us can be wrong. And either of us can be right. -
People that reject science but cannot say what they should replace it with are just delusional. Why is that? Science is about reality. If you reject science, then, you accept delusions. If you embrace science, then, you embrace reality and reject delusions.
If you doubt that science is as good as it gets but you cannot say what you should replace it with, then you are just stupid.
Why give up the best when there is nothing better on offer? Stupid, right?
So if you want to doubt science or doubt that science is the best on offer, then say it, say what you think is better. If you cannot say it but you continue to doubt that science is the best, not perfect, but the best on offer, then you are just stupid. -
Why do people cling on to beliefs? The reason is simple, and that is there are weird coincidences in this world.
Some people get struck by lightning and some people win lottery.
Rational intelligent people will say: "Those are just coincidence. It happens and there is no way to control the outcome."
Stupid delusional people will say: "If I pray to such and such a thing or if I do such and such a ritual, then I will be able to ensure that I strike lottery and I do not get struck by lightning."
Delusional. -
Rightly so.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:I'd summarise..........
--------------------------------------------------------------
Set 1: With regards to the capability of science -
Belief 1:
Some people believe that science can only explain a miniscule part of the universe. Some would add on and say that what science cannot explain, Man is not meant to know, or that our limited thought capacity cannot comprehend. Even given all the time and effort, not all the mysteries in the universe can be resolved.
Belief 2:
Others believe in the sufficiency of science....that what we do not understand yet, science will one day uncover the answers....and that by believing in limitations in science, our capacity to discover the undiscovered will be handicapped. Given enough time and effort, all mysteries in the universe can be resolved.
------------------------------------------------------------
also
------------------------------------------------------------
Set 2: With regards to the current mysteries behind the current unknowns -
Belief 1:
Some believe (whether rightly or wrongly) in supernatural agency behind what science has yet to (or cannot) discover.
Belief 2:
While others believe that it is only an unknown natural agency behind what science has yet to (or cannot) discover.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I may support Beliefs 2 for both sets, just as you may support Beliefs 1 for both sets. Yes, at face-value, Belief 2 of Set 1 may seem implausible (and even arrogant), but some would say it is not impossible for Mankind to discover all the mysteries of the universe given enough time, effort and ingenuity.
But......
We have to admit that both our positions are based on "beliefs" and do not rely on "evidence". Either of us can be wrong. And either of us can be right.
I respect your beliefs. And you are right that yours is also a belief and not a fact. Either one of us can be right or wrong.
Anyway as I mentioned, Supernatural may be deemed a little too closely to superstition, as its too closely used with spirits and ghosts, etc.
However, as I mentioned, Supernatural may be encompassing the 'facts' which our current Science or us cannot comprehend.
Either way, I respect the way you debate, and I will refrain from responding to the zealots (superstitious believers) of Science in a flaming war. -
I am bringing one more point to the above.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:I'd summarise..........
--------------------------------------------------------------
Set 1: With regards to the capability of science -
Belief 1:
Some people believe that science can only explain a miniscule part of the universe. Some would add on and say that what science cannot explain, Man is not meant to know, or that our limited thought capacity cannot comprehend. Even given all the time and effort, not all the mysteries in the universe can be resolved.
Belief 2:
Others believe in the sufficiency of science....that what we do not understand yet, science will one day uncover the answers....and that by believing in limitations in science, our capacity to discover the undiscovered will be handicapped. Given enough time and effort, all mysteries in the universe can be resolved.
-[/i]
Actually I am not exactly (1). As you noted in my postings, I said that our CURRENT science cannot explain a lot of things.
Whether Science can one day open the door to all answers, remains to be seen, and I never intended to speculate about a future which is pretty far away
Its a common belief (I won't say fact here) that humans right now can only assess about 5-10% of their brain capability through the conscious usage of it.
Who knows, maybe one day, we can use 100% of our brain capability? Perhaps by then, your belief in (2) will come true, and I won't argue against that.
But one thing's for sure.
You and I won't live to see that day though
-
U are erroneous to say that some ppl pretend to support science -- the word "science" need not have a capital "S".How do u get the conclusion that some ppl devoid of ethics?Last time,u asked what "fact" is.The question is laughable.Please don't think too highly of your opinions.Originally posted by soul_rage:I respect people who support Science sensibly, such as Ibram or you, even though I do not know if he applies respect to others who are against his views.
I do not respect people who pretend to support Science, but is in fact, rude and obnoxious and totally devoid of ethics when he said he thinks there's nothing wrong with calling others stupid if Science can prove it.
To me, its impt to separate the actual sensible supporters, as against the superstitious believers of Science (like Andrew and PRP), coz I think the superstitious believers are insulting the sensible supporters
Overconsumption of tonics can cause a nosebleed. Over-zealous belief in Science will only result in such believers becoming what they belittle others of, ie, superstitious believers of Science.
U say Andrew & I are superstious believers of science.This is your mistaken view.Haven't i say that it is good that one should have some doubt on scientific findings or opinions -- I commended u to bring out the opinion of doubting on science?
Calling other ppl stupid is not nice -- but sometimes it can be true.But calling others monkey is more insulting. -
I am open to discussions with you if you are here to discuss and debate objectively. But I am not open if you stay in support of Andrew.Originally posted by PRP:U are erroneous to say that some ppl pretend to support science -- the word "science" need not have a capital "S".How do u get the conclusion that some ppl devoid of ethics?Last time,u asked what "fact" is.The question is laughable.Please don't think too highly of your opinions.
U say Andrew & I are superstious believers of science.This is your mistaken view.Haven't i say that it is good that one should have some doubt on scientific findings or opinions -- I commended u to bring out the opinion of doubting on science?
Calling other ppl stupid is not nice -- but sometimes it can be true.But calling others monkey is more insulting.
I summarize again (though I have repeatedly say this, I will say this again for the benefit of doubt):
- Andrew said its ok to call people stupid, if Science can prove a person is stupid
- It is NEVER ethical to call someone stupid. Straight-forward, clear-cut. Just answer this simple question. Do you go up to a person who is retarded by definition of Science, and call him a retard, just because Science proves he is retarded?
- If you don't, then you have no option but to agree with me that Andrew is devoid of ethics, since he doesn't respect other people.
If everyone behaves like him, and believes that so long Science says its ok, so ethically you don't care, then this world will be a sad place to live in.
Science was not meant ever to be used for such unethical purpose. It was meant to push forward the progression of Mankind and advance our ethics together.
If Andrew is a product of Science advancement, then I would rather Science not progress so much.
Why did I not flame you (until you started speaking up for him), or Ibram, or other supporters of Science, but ONLY HIM? The above IS the reason.
And yes, I called him a monkey because he refuse to admit that it is wrong to call others stupid. And I have no problems apologizing if he learns his mistake. -
Why is Andrew a superstitious (over-zealous) believer of Science?
A true Scientific person combines both ethics and Science for the benefit of society.
An overzealous believer of Science disregards all aspects of Mankind and society.
He has reached a point where he's no longer supporting Science (and he will never win over others with his arguments), but he's behaving like the zealots of Religion, where they have gone all obsessed thinking that their religion is the holy grail, disregarding all other aspects of society.
It is precisely because of zealots existing in a certain religion, that results in people developing a dislike against that religion. They are the ones that push people away from their religion, and they do not know it. -
Is science perfect, No. Is science the best there is, Yes.
This is just a fact and is reality.
There are mentally weak people expressing their opinions in this thread. They cannot face reality. The cannot face the fact that the best is not 100% fool-proof. That is mental weakness. It takes mental strength to stare reality in the face. The weak are not be able to withstand the glare of reality.
Their weak minds try to look for "something" better. They believe that there must be something better since science is not perfect. They cannot find anything better and do they then acknowledge that while science is not perfect it is th best there is? No, that is too devastating for weak minded people.
Weak minded people seeks perfection where there is none. They cannot cope with reality because they cannot cope with uncertainty. They cannot cope with uncertainty because they are mentally weak.
Be strong. Accept reality for what it is. Not perfect but it is as good as it gets. -
I advocate believing in science. It doesn't mean that one should only believe in science and nothing else.One can still believe in other good values such as family, friendship, honesty,respect,etc.
-
Calling others stupid is quite common.Surely the other person is not realy a fool but only that his opinion is wrong or stupid.There is no question of ethics.Originally posted by soul_rage:I am open to discussions with you if you are here to discuss and debate objectively. But I am not open if you stay in support of Andrew.
I summarize again (though I have repeatedly say this, I will say this again for the benefit of doubt):
- Andrew said its ok to call people stupid, if Science can prove a person is stupid
- It is NEVER ethical to call someone stupid. Straight-forward, clear-cut. Just answer this simple question. Do you go up to a person who is retarded by definition of Science, and call him a retard, just because Science proves he is retarded?
- If you don't, then you have no option but to agree with me that Andrew is devoid of ethics, since he doesn't respect other people.
If everyone behaves like him, and believes that so long Science says its ok, so ethically you don't care, then this world will be a sad place to live in.
Science was not meant ever to be used for such unethical purpose. It was meant to push forward the progression of Mankind and advance our ethics together.
If Andrew is a product of Science advancement, then I would rather Science not progress so much.
Why did I not flame you (until you started speaking up for him), or Ibram, or other supporters of Science, but ONLY HIM? The above IS the reason.
And yes, I called him a monkey because he refuse to admit that it is wrong to call others stupid. And I have no problems apologizing if he learns his mistake.
Since you has called him monkey,what should Andrew apologise for calling others stupid? -
Pls read the belowOriginally posted by PRP:Calling others stupid is quite common.Surely the other person is not realy a fool but only that his opinion is wrong or stupid.There is no question of ethics.
Since you has called him monkey,what should Andrew apologise for calling others stupid?
"And yes, I called him a monkey because he refuse to admit that it is wrong to call others stupid. And I have no problems apologizing if he learns his mistake."
I have already said I am gracious enough to apologise if he is willing to accept that he is rude.
Supporting a person should also be done in a reasonable manner, and not deliberately missing out parts of the posting.
If you said its nothing wrong to call others stupid, then you have a problem with objectivity as well.
If you cannot see how rude when he first started his postings, then you have a problem with seeing things in an objective manner.
As I said, why I only flame him, but not any other supporters of Science? -
Yes, there are differences in the ways in which individuals process information in our brains, and different people have different mental capabilities - but the belief that we "use only 10% of our brain" is an urban legend. Humans put most of their cerebral cortex to use, even when dozing:Originally posted by soul_rage:Its a common belief (I won't say fact here) that humans right now can only assess about 5-10% of their brain capability through the conscious usage of it.
Who knows, maybe one day, we can use 100% of our brain capability? Perhaps by then, your belief in (2) will come true, and I won't argue against that.
But one thing's for sure.
You and I won't live to see that day though
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
'Like memory, human intelligence is probably not confined to a single area in the brain, but is instead the result of multiple brain areas working in concert, a new review of research (sep 2007)suggests' More on this at: http://www.livescience.com/health/070911_intel_network.html
Actually when I suggested that humans could possibly (but may not be so plausibly) gain "knowledge of all the unknowns" in the universe, I was thinking of the ideals of 'Transhumanism' - a movement which advocates the enhancement of humans (physical and mental properties) through scientific means like bioengineering, nanotechnology, cybernetics, etc.
This ideals of this movement is of course very speculative and almost sci-fi in nature. Some people may be horrified at the suggestion to alter the human form, but this movement is rooted in a benign desire to gain knowledge and build an utopia:
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/
Certainly most of us today will probably not live long enough to see the next major step in human advancement.... -
Thanks for the correction of a common misconception.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:Yes, there are differences in the ways in which individuals process information in our brains, and different people have different mental capabilities - but the belief that we "use only 10% of our brain" is an urban legend. Humans put most of their cerebral cortex to use, even when dozing:
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
'Like memory, human intelligence is probably not confined to a single area in the brain, but is instead the result of multiple brain areas working in concert, a new review of research (sep 2007)suggests' More on this at: http://www.livescience.com/health/070911_intel_network.html
Actually when I suggested that humans could possibly (but may not be so plausibly) gain "knowledge of all the unknowns" in the universe, I was thinking of the ideals of 'Transhumanism' - a movement which advocates the enhancement of humans (physical and mental properties) through scientific means like bioengineering, nanotechnology, cybernetics, etc.
This ideals of this movement is of course very speculative and almost sci-fi in nature. Some people may be horrified at the suggestion to alter the human form, but this movement is rooted in a benign desire to gain knowledge and build an utopia:
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/
Certainly most of us today will probably not live long enough to see the next major step in human advancement.... This 10% thing was something said by many people for many years
However, it also implies that we humans are very limited in our brain capability, though how each person uses its resource is different, and can be effective or ineffective usage, efficient or inefficient usage.
I read transhumanism and is truly interesting. A scientific way to truly evolve to a higher being. Thanks for the link. I will be reading it in more detail.
But just a question, since the ideals of this movement is very speculative and almost sci-fi in nature (which seriously, it means there is no evidence that their ideals are attainable), then wouldn't this be something similar to paranormal research, where there are people attempting to use scientific methods to prove that the paranormal exists?