What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Peter_Plato]

I am simply not interested in his (name removed by moderator)ut. Sometimes I take exception and read his posts, but that is an exception and not the rule.

Now I don’t hold much hope that you WILL take “exception” to this post, either, but here goes…

It is the same as “I reject the existence of married bachelors, because they are logically impossible”. As I already elaborated, “perfect justice” and “perfect mercy” are mutually exclusive. “Justice” is to act according to what the other party merits (it could be a reward or a punishment) and “mercy” is to forgive a trespassing or give a reward which is NOT merited. So they cannot happen at the same time in the same instance.

So your claim is that the same party cannot possibly merit both justice AND mercy in some proper proportion?

Are you insisting that any particular person must either merit justice OR mercy, always exclusive of each other, AND never both?

So, for example, a ten year old who steals a coat to aid a friend facing a cold winter merits exactly the same amount of either justice or mercy as the eighteen year old who steals a coat merely to show off his prowess in front of his friends? What of other imaginable cases where intention or willfulness to transgress lies somewhere in between these two examples? Justice and mercy will always be mutually exclusive? Odd insistence, as far as I can tell.

Would you NOT agree that some admixture of mercy and justice would be more “perfect,” as far as a determination of punishment is concerned, than a determination strictly constrained to either one (justice) or the other (mercy)? Wouldn’t the ten year old stealing to help a friend merit greater mercy but some measure of justice for choosing a questionable means of doing so? And wouldn’t the eighteen year old merit much less mercy and greater justice for his actions?

It seems strange to me that you insist God’s omnibenevolence must imply he is constrained to one or the other and not both in proper measure when we would NOT place such a constraint on parents, judges or victims.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The so-called “classical concept of God” is loaded with self contradictory attributes, which you can try to reconcile with reality by arbitrarily redefining them.

As ostensibly “self-contradictory” as mercy AND justice, I expect.

 

[tdgesq]

Yes it does. You hit your finger with a hammer, and you learn that it leads to unwanted pain, so you stop it.

Um, you do realize that by conceding that empiricism is an epistemic prerequisite for the steps of the scientific method, and that empiricism does give knowledge of objective reality, that you just falsified your own conclusion that the scientific method is the only means by which we can know objective reality.

Why would empiricism as a valid means of acquiring knowledge of present reality give me any pain? I’m a direct realist so I don’t have any problem with it at all.

Obviously. Though individuals may interpret the “raw” data incorrectly.

Yes, empiricism does obviously give us knowledge of present reality prior to application of the scientific method. Thank you. It takes a real man to admit he’s wrong.

The operating word here (which you omitted) is SOMETIMES.

Okay, so then there is a way that you can identify when your memory is accurate. How do you identify when the scientist’s memory is accurate? Maybe if the scientist observes Bob eating a ham sandwich, then it will be accurate.

I did not elaborate on the obvious. Mea culpa, I am sure.

Strange not to mention it, since observations of past objective reality are so important for the scientific method to work. I wonder how all these instances of past objective reality lead to accurate conclusions about present objective reality in your worldview then.

For the short term it is probably correct. But can you remember what happened to you when you were a few months old?

No, and scientists can’t remember what happened to them when they were a few months old. That’s probably why they don’t rely on it for they scientific method.

They can be ascertained TODAY.

Wow! The results of all those scientific studies of past objective reality can ascertain reality today!? I’m sorry, but I cannot accept faith-based statements like this; at least not when there are all these potential memory issues and not when they were tests of past objective reality. Why should I believe those past objective results will obtain today?

Well, maybe if you had reasons to believe that the present will be like the past, that nature has been and will continue to be uniform, then maybe I could accept it. Oh wait, I can accept it because I have reasons to believe that nature is uniform.

 

[tdgesq]

Well, he’s doing more than one thing unwittingly lately…

Lol. It’s taken half a dozen posts just to get past “empiricism” isn’t the same thing as the “scientific method.” Who knew that it would be this difficult to get the Hume’s problem of induction.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . method which allows the unbelievers to ascertain the veracity of you claims about “immortal souls” and other associated claims.

To know this one must know themselves.

I’m going to try something. Go back to your post:

[Hee_Zen;12545201]. . . Does the past “still” exist? Obviously, no. The objectively existing external reality encompasses everything that exists. Not what could exist, or what existed, or what could have existed… Fortunately for us, many events leave a physical “footprint” behind so we can have a highly reliable estimate of “what might have happened”. But if there is no such physical evidence, it all boils down to testimony, which is either accurate of not. . .

You say the past does not exist.
The future then exists as a potential.
The present? Well, here we are.
That was the case when you wrote this correct? You were in the present.
I am in the present as I write; and you are reading this in the present.

Do you believe the entire universe is in the same present as yourself? That it is the only present?
Are you saying I don’t exist as I write this? Preposterous
Obviously what is occurring in your present is in your moment.
But the entire thing, does it all move solely in the same moment as yourself?

I would contend that your moment is your immortal soul.
You are developing spiritually as you decompose physically and ultimately psychologically.
The stuff going on changes, but you cannot but be here, now.
Interestingly, the present is fresh (for want of a better way to say it) and where all our actions take place: the past is fixed.
This reflects your having free will. As you act, it changes who you are. That cannot be altered although it can be forgiven.
We have this life to become who we are in eternity.

I don’t think I can get it across but, let’s take another crack at it.

Perhaps if you consider time as a forth dimension, you will see that isolating one time as past-present-future, as is this particular moment in which you are reading this, is peculiar.
Just like the fact that only you can feel your pain.
If the universe is continuous matter, being or whatever, how does this happen.
It happens because we are individual souls in the midst of eternity, the one true relationship being that with God. (Edit: We have each other obviously, but He is at the Foundation of our being.)
That is why we only have memory and cannot actually move forward or backwards in time as we do in space.
This being the case, we can understand the eastern idea that the rest, everything but one’s relationship with God, is illusion.

So we are eternal, if only perhaps in the eternal mind of God. I have it on good authority that the seed which is being formed on this earth will develop into something greater when it’s been done forming.

This is not meant to be argued but to be contemplated.
Who are you? What makes you you? Really, in tangible terms because you are tangible.
Since this is not just you filling the universe, what else is there?
What is the nature of the connection between ourselves and the rest?
It’s stuff like that.

By the way we do die, imho. It all ends. But we are resurrected in a glorious body.

Meh, I probably just confused you. This need polishing for sure.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nothing could be simpler. Of course the hypothesis forming and the tests could be very complicated, but the method itself is simple. This is called the scientific method. Of course the word “scientific” is superfluous. It has been adopted by science, but it originated millennia ago - way before formalized “science” was “born”. The hypothesis forming does not have to be “formalized”, it could be a simple: “does my wife love me”? The test does not have to be a “formalized” test either… you just observe her behavior and draw your conclusions. You might be mistaken, but that is par for the course. In the natural sciences nothing is ever “carved” in stone. Even the most cherished basic principles can be overturned if a new observation demands it. Now the question: “is this picture beautiful?” cannot be answered, since there is objective standard of “beauty”. It is a nonsensical question. Or asking: “is this weight heavy or light?” is nonsense… for one person it might be heavy, for someone else it is light. There is no objective standard of “heaviness”.

There is something in this paragraph that comes off as a little fishy. Either you are trying to impress your wife or you aren’t as concerned with consistency as you claim.

You say there is no objective standard for beauty, but yet claim there is one for love. At first, this might seem innocuous, but it certainly does call into question how you assign “objectivity” to referents and the standards or grounds you use for judging objectivity.

You claim objectivity is questionable when, as in your example for “heavy,” persons do not agree on the essential quality - it is relative to each individual. Unfortunately, the word “love,” as in “Does my wife love me?” is also quite relative and doesn’t, at least on the face of it, allow the kind of objectivity you claim it does.

Why is this not a nonsensical question, in your mind, for precisely the same reasons that you claim “Is this picture beautiful?” qualifies as a nonsensical question?

I suspect your criteria for “objectivity” are a little more blurry than you let on.
In fact, I suspect “objectivity” is not the unambiguous characteristic you seem to think it is.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You are mistaken if you equate “understanding” with “acceptance”. I understand what you say, but I reject it. The so-called “classical concept of God” is loaded with self contradictory attributes, which you can try to reconcile with reality by arbitrarily redefining them.

No, as I have pointed out, you obviously don’t understand. As I said before, by using the “one god further” (or “one god fewer”) argument you have unwittingly exposed yourself as wholly ignorant of Thomism, or any classical theism, for that matter.

The libertarian concept of “free will” is rather simple. It refers to exactly three requirements. **One **is that the “locus of decision” is with the agent. **Two **is that the decision must have at least two different possibilities (that there are at least two possibilities to choose from) and **three **that there are no external factors that would determine our choice - though obviously the external factors will influence out choice. It says NOTHING about the INTERNAL methodology of HOW the decision is reached. The choice is free if it is not determined by the external factors.

I see, you are shifting your position again from what you said in the other thread, in an obvious maneuver of evasion. What you said before is clearly not consistent with this. I hope you do realize that your new definition entails the possibility (of “internal methodology”) that your decision is made by firing of synapses in your brain that is determined and that you have no control over. That is precisely what I always asserted would have to be the case under naturalism, and which is also held by other naturalists themselves such as Jerry Coyne, whose article I already linked to on the other thread (an article that you then chose to ignore as well). Of course, that is not free will, as will be obvious to anyone (except perhaps you).

Jerry Coyne’s article:
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-01/free-will-science-religion/52317624/1

I am simply not interested in his (name removed by moderator)ut. Sometimes I take exception and read his posts, but that is an exception and not the rule.

Evasion again. As anyone who reads them (links above on this page) can see that Peter’s excellent posts on this subject that you refuse to respond to did exactly this, show the fundamental flaws in your (then held) position that true free will an be an emergent property under naturalism.

You are obviously not intellectually serious. I am done discussing with you on this thread. Have a good day.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Lol. It’s taken half a dozen posts just to get past “empiricism” isn’t the same thing as the “scientific method.” Who knew that it would be this difficult to get the Hume’s problem of induction.

Yeah, you have unending patience, it seems. Your posts on the subject are excellent. It is obvious that Hee Zen cannot take your relentless analysis of the inconsistencies in his position, since he clearly avoids answering crucial elements of it. Here it is again, evasion.

 

[Hee_Zen]

So your claim is that the same party cannot possibly merit both justice AND mercy in some proper proportion?

Not at the same time, in the same conditions. It is possible to exercise justice in one case and exercise mercy in another. But if that is called “perfectly just and perfectly merciful”, then you have another nonsensical proposition on your hands.

So, for example, a ten year old who steals a coat to aid a friend facing a cold winter merits exactly the same amount of either justice or mercy as the eighteen year old who steals a coat merely to show off his prowess in front of his friends? What of other imaginable cases where intention or willfulness to transgress lies somewhere in between these two examples? Justice and mercy will always be mutually exclusive? Odd insistence, as far as I can tell.

Obviously you missed out on the definition of “justice”. The judge must take all the circumstances into consideration, both the **mitigating **and the **exacerbating **ones. Therefore the two cases are very different.

It seems strange to me that you insist God’s omnibenevolence must imply he is constrained to one or the other and not both in proper measure when we would NOT place such a constraint on parents, judges or victims.

Benevolence is a different question. No one would call a human even remotely “benevolent” if he acted like God does. At best he would be called indifferent.

 

[Hee_Zen]

TYou say there is no objective standard for beauty, but yet claim there is one for love.

Sure. If “love” is not expressed in actions, it is a meaningless claim. Actions can be observed. Beauty is a subjective assessment of an object. What one person finds “beautiful”, another one may find ugly.

You claim objectivity is questionable when, as in your example for “heavy,” persons do not agree on the essential quality - it is relative to each individual.

Of course. “Weight” is objective, it can be measured, “heaviness” is not.

 

[Hee_Zen]

No, as I have pointed out, you obviously don’t understand.

You merely claimed.

I am done discussing with you on this thread.

I can only hope that you will keep your promise.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Um, you do realize that by conceding that empiricism is an epistemic prerequisite for the steps of the scientific method, and that empiricism does give knowledge of objective reality, that you just falsified your own conclusion that the scientific method is the only means by which we can know objective reality.

They only differ in a superficial manner, but they are essentially the same, so there is no problem.

Okay, so then there is a way that you can identify when your memory is accurate. How do you identify when the scientist’s memory is accurate? Maybe if the scientist observes Bob eating a ham sandwich, then it will be accurate.

Sure, sometimes it does. We have not been around in Pompeii when the Vesuvius erupted, but we have the physical evidence left behind. But there is no physical evidence that Caesar actually said “Alea iacta est”, when he crossed the Rubicon. Why do you insist that “one size fits all”?

 

[Hee_Zen]

I see, you are shifting your position again from what you said in the other thread, in an obvious maneuver of evasion.

Actually, it was you tried to evade my question about the epistemological method to find out about those “immortal souls”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sure. If “love” is not expressed in actions, it is a meaningless claim. Actions can be observed.

So can art and music.

“Loving” actions cannot be determined without objective agreement as to what “loving” actions entail. In many ways, that is subject-dependent and not objective in the sense required by the scientific method. What you consider “loving” may not be what others do.

Aesthetics is a discipline within philosophy. What makes good music, art or ethical behaviour have defensible objective criteria. Now, the fact that you don’t agree makes these no less objective than the fact that someone, somewhere, might dispute scientific claims makes them relative and subjective.

Therefore, your "relative to individual whim’ does not suffice, according to your own examples, to render any consideration non-objective or unscientific. And neither is “observable” sufficient to render a determination objective.

 

[Hee_Zen]

“Loving” actions cannot be determined without objective agreement as to what “loving” actions entail. In many ways, that is subject-dependent and not objective in the sense required by the scientific method. What you consider “loving” may not be what others do.

I don’t think so. Acting in the best interest of someone else is the definition of “loving action”.

Aesthetics is a discipline within philosophy. What makes good music, art or ethical behaviour have defensible objective criteria.

Do you the old saying “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. Or the other: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think so. Acting in the best interest of someone else is the definition of “loving action”.

“Best interest” according to whom or by what determination?

I say it is in your best interest to believe in God since lacking such a belief unmoors you from objectivity regarding your own eternal best interest. You may claim your best interest is tied to purely physical needs or wants. The distinct telos used in each determination makes “best interest” dependent upon just that stipulation. We have disagreement which is fundamental, therefore “loving action” is not as clear as you claim, without agreement regarding the ends towards the interest is aimed.

The other issue is how far “best interest” is to extend. Genghis Khan may claim it need only extend as far as himself and no further. Jesus claimed it should extend to one’s enemies. How far do you suppose it ought to extend?

 

[Hee_Zen]

“Best interest” according to whom or by what determination?

What counts as “best interest” may vary from person to person. After all we are not identical. But we are not supposed to make decisions for others who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions. Therefore “respect” for other people - while it may be an inaction - is part of “loving” behavior. The basic rule should be: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. And the inverse golden rule: “do not do unto others what you would not want them do unto you”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you the old saying “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. Or the other: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”.

Merely because fine distinctions are not easily made does not entail no distinction is possible. Fingers running down a chalkboard are never considered “musical,” whereas distinct bodies of music exist and music theory is a healthy, thriving and objective pursuit. Ditto with art theory.

The fact that untrained or unwashed “masses” do not have a handle on “beholding” the objective criteria is neither here nor there. And the fact that politically correct or agenda driven individuals become persuasive in the field does not render the objective criteria false or irrelevant.

Science has a similar problem, as far as I can tell, there are no final answers - lots of theories. But then music and art have their theories, as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The basic rule should be: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”.

This seems to be a pretty poor principle (PPP) since I can begin pushing my nose into your interests. Does that mean your fist ought to refrain from stopping my nose from doing so, since the right of your fist ends where the extent of my nose has reached?

Some people have bigger noses than others, while the size or extension of fists tends to vary, as well.

After all, my fist can determine where your nose is located and my nose can extend to where you may not want it to be before your fist can tell it where to leave off.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I hope they do: “lack of evidence”. That is the common thread among all the “gods”, none of them have a shred of evidence going for them. And that is what the atheists are aware of. And that is what the theists deny. They readily admit the lack of evidence for all the so-called “false” gods, but they refuse to admit that their own “god” suffers from the same problem. Of course it is called “special pleading”.

Likewise it is called special pleading when you say there is no God but cannot prove there is no God.