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

[Peter_Plato]

You know, I invested a lot of time, thought and effort into that post. You simply selected one sentence of minor relevance and chose to reply to that. Admittedly you were right when you “rubbed my nose” into the inconsistency of what I wrote there, but the fact that you chose only one sentence “insinuates” that you found the rest unworthy to respond to. Now maybe you don’t care, which is fine, or did not have time to get into the details, but without an explanation I find it - well - somewhat sad to see the effort to be brushed to the side.

Hee_Zen’s Conscience to Hee_Zen: What’s the matter? Do YOU have no sense of humour?

You blow off the comments of others by not responding to them in their entirety and insinuating that you find their arguments unworthy to respond to. Maybe you don’t care that your lack of response shows that your ethical thinking is full of holes, but the fact that you turn into a big cry baby (above) all the while accusing others of having no sense of humour shows that your “subjectivity” view of ethics and the qualities of things like humour have no basis whatsoever in anything except the fickle feelings in your own pituitary gland and other sundry organs of your body. That hardly gives me, your conscience, a proper leg to stand on.

It isn’t my job to always agree with and tell you that you are right all the time. That schtick IS getting tedious.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My, oh my… you don’t even have a sense of humor. Sure looks like that your lack of comprehension is truly “catholic”.

There is a difference between merely possessing a sense of humour and possessing a refined and discriminating one. Your humour, like your ethics, has no basis in reality.

I have news for you: merely because YOU find something funny, does not make it “objectively” funny. YOU are not the determiner of “funny” just like you are not the determiner of “moral.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh, my, Hee_Zen, I sincerely apologize for post 755! It wasn’t me.

I was sitting having breakfast when I looked over at my computer and noticed a whispy, looking, malnourished waif of a thing hammering away at the keys. i tried to find out what it was up to, but it wouldn’t say. it just kept repeating your name over and over again, as if in a trance, as it typed.

When I looked the screen and saw what it HAD typed, I said, “I will let Hee_Zen know that it wasn’t me, it was YOU who typed those words!”

It responded, “Me?” Then it started laughing uncontrollably and rolling on the floor.

“Do you know who I am?” it blurted out when, finally, after what seemed many hours of raucous laughter, it stood back up.

“I am Hee_Zen’s conscience. He will NEVER believe you. He treats me like I don’t exist. In fact, he claims to know that I don’t exist!”

Then it convulsed with laughter, again, for many minutes more until it just disappeared.

What have done to this poor thing to cause it to behave in such a disturbed manner, Hee_Zen?

 

[Peter_Plato]

What have done to this poor thing to cause it to behave in such a disturbed manner, Hee_Zen?

I originally tried typing “you” into that line, but “you” apparently can’t be “known” to exist with any degree of certainty by any epistemic means, Hee_Zen, so my keyboard balked at that word.

Your conscience messed up my computer, Hee_Zen. I suspect it might be haunting it. I am no longer responsible for what will be posted in this thread from my computer.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I have news for you: merely because YOU find something funny, does not make it “objectively” funny. YOU are not the determiner of “funny” just like you are not the determiner of “moral.”

You are really off the far end. I never claimed that humor is “objective”. On the very contrary, humor the quintessential subjective phenomenon. As for humor, I am especially fond of black humor, along with the politically incorrect one - like John Callahan’s cartoons, which combine both into a wickedly funny concoction.

“When people laugh like hell and then say, ‘That’s not funny’, you can be pretty sure they’re talking about John Callahan.”

– P.J.,O’Rourke, author of Holidays in Hell

One of these days you should invest some time into a reading and elementary comprehension class, so you could distinguish what people actually assert from the nonsensical hodgepodge which resides in your head. Until then… Happy New Year.

 

[Shaolen]

No, it is a tongue-in-cheek remark. Don’t you have a sense of humor? Join the “illustrious crowd” of Peter Plato. Of course as usual, jokes have some foundation in reality, even if they “distort” reality to a certain extent - to make it more readily recognizable.

My wife always says “jokes are always half meant” ������

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are really off the far end. I never claimed that humor is “objective”. On the very contrary, humor the quintessential subjective phenomenon. As for humor, I am especially fond of black humor, along with the politically incorrect one - like John Callahan’s cartoons, which combine both into a wickedly funny concoction.

One of these days you should invest some time into a reading and elementary comprehension class, so you could distinguish what people actually assert from the nonsensical hodgepodge which resides in your head. Until then… Happy New Year.

The above smacks of “nonsensical hodgepodge” because you claim humour is the “quintessential subjective phenomenon” then turn around in the same paragraph to say Callahan’s cartoons ARE “wickedly funny” as if that claim were objectively meaningful in some sense.

Therein lies the problem: you want to claim some things are merely subjective at your discretion but, also – at your discretion or whim, whichever seems appropriate – that “quintessentially subjective” things can magically become objective because of the subjectively malleable way in which you use the word “objective.”

When “people” begin to actually assert something besides “nonsensical hodgepodge,” it might be worth my investment of time to try to make a distinction. In this case, the hodgepodge is what is “actually asserted,” so any attempt at comprehension is defeated, ipso facto, by its being nonsensical.

The hodgepodge is back in your court.

 

[Hee_Zen]

My wife always says “jokes are always half meant” ������

She is correct. At least “half-meant”. But whether someone finds a particular joke funny, or not, it totally subjective. As such there is no epistemological method which could decide if a joke is funny or not. And if someone would say that this is a shortcoming of the “scientific method”, then all we can say that he is full of that proverbial substance.

 

[Aloysium]

My wife always says “jokes are always half meant” ��

When we were first married, my wife treated me like a god.
Every night she would present me with her burnt offerings.

 

[Peter_Plato]

She is correct. At least “half-meant”. But whether someone finds a particular joke funny, or not, it totally subjective. As such there is no epistemological method which could decide if a joke is funny or not. And if someone would say that this is a shortcoming of the “scientific method”, then all we can say that he is full of that proverbial substance.

Whether someone finds a joke funny or not IS subjective, but the question remains whether humour has an objective ground.

There is no pressing need to determine that unless you are a standup comic whose livelihood depends upon it.

Morality, on the other hand, is a different question altogether since the well-being, destiny and fate of every human person depends upon an answer to the question of whether good and evil do have, in fact, ontological status of a unique character.

Obviously, killing someone does impact that individual far beyond making them laugh does.

For you to claim that the significance of ending a life is MERELY a social convention, with no real importance beyond that sense, would appear to demonstrate that you are missing something crucial in your analysis.

By the way, I never claimed that the scientific method demonstrates a shortcoming if it cannot explain humour or morality, rather, I contend that YOUR insistence that epistemological certainty is ONLY available through the scientific method shows that your view is fundamentally flawed. This is not an issue with the scientific method, but of your attempt to extend the scientific method where it cannot go. That is, as the ONLY grounds we could have for epistemological certainty regarding reality.

 

[Al_Moritz]

**Happy New Year **to you and everyone.

**Happy New Year **to you too and to everyone!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But whether someone finds a particular joke funny, or not, it totally subjective. As such there is no epistemological method which could decide if a joke is funny or not.

I’m afraid this is on a par with saying that no piece of music can be objectively beautiful.

A piece of music can be objectively beautiful, but that does not mean all people will find it equally beautiful, and some might even find it boring. The same applies to humor. It may be objectively funny, but some people will not see the humor, others will see only part of the humor, and still others will laugh only because other people are laughing and laughing is infectious.

You cannot impose your own subjective humor upon an event. The event objectively imposes its humor on you. That is why when funny things happen, or you hear something funny said, you laugh.

 

[Hee_Zen]

…I contend that YOUR insistence that epistemological certainty is ONLY available through the scientific method shows that your view is fundamentally flawed.

Putting words into my mouth again? Go back and quote my words back to me, where I actually said that nonsense. I predict again, you will fail, just like when you asserted that I consider “observation” to be the equivalent of the “scientific method”.

I’m afraid this is on a par with saying that no piece of music can be objectively beautiful.

Don’t be afraid. You got it. Along with any other pieces of art.

A piece of music can be objectively beautiful, but that does not mean all people will find it equally beautiful, and some might even find it boring.

So what DOES it mean?? That is the 64thousand dollar question. Do you have an answer?

The same applies to humor. It may be objectively funny, but some people will not see the humor, others will see only part of the humor, and still others will laugh only because other people are laughing and laughing is infectious.

You cannot impose your own subjective humor upon an event. The event objectively imposes its humor on you. That is why when funny things happen, or you hear something funny said, you laugh.

Well, since you guys already went belly-up on making an argument on the epistemological method about the supernatural and the problem of ethics, now you want to sink your dentures into the question of aesthetics?

Obviously the concepts of “humor” or “beauty” exist (along with the concept of justice and morality), but none of these are ontologically existing entities. As such - before anyone will declare that the “scientific method” is “impotent” here - I am going to agree. The scientific method is inapplicable here. As such what alternative epistemological method are you going to employ to decide if a picture, or a piece of music is “objectively” beautiful or not? Also how will you decide if a certain joke is “objectively” funny or not?

Go for it, but I suggest you wear thick underpants, so you will not hurt yourself when you land on your “behind”… because you tread of very slippery ice.

Just for the fun of it, I will offer two possible “epistemological” methods. One, toss a coin, and if it is heads, declare the picture “beautiful”. Two, ask a few dozens of people and let the majority decide. These are both “objective” methods, but how valid are they?

 

[tdgesq]

Just for the fun of it, I will offer two possible “epistemological” methods. One, toss a coin, and if it is heads, declare the picture “beautiful”. Two, ask a few dozens of people and let the majority decide. These are both “objective” methods, but how valid are they?

Just to restate your position. Only the scientific method gives us knowledge of objective reality. Now since the scientific method cannot tell us anything about what “should” be or “should not” be. And since the scientific method cannot tell us what picture is “beautiful” or is “not beautiful,” then we should admit that neither morals nor aesthetics can be known as objective reality.

My refutation:

http://images.catholic.org/media/2014/08/08/14075170681961_700.jpg

A distraught father in Syria holds the lifeless body of his decapitated daughter, executed by militants because she was of a Christian family. www.catholic.org

 

[Hee_Zen]

Just to restate your position. Only the scientific method gives us knowledge of objective reality. Now since the scientific method cannot tell us anything about what “should” be or “should not” be.

True, but imprecise. The “should” and “should not” must be based upon the objective reality. The scientific method can tell us what reality is, but it can only help in deciding how should one behave.

And since the scientific method cannot tell us what picture is “beautiful” or is “not beautiful,” then we should admit that neither morals nor aesthetics can be known as objective reality.

My refutation:

A distraught father in Syria holds the lifeless body of his decapitated daughter, executed by militants because she was of a Christian family.

Instead of playing the “emotion-game” posturing as a “refutation”, why don’t you present an actual epistemological method which would separate the “beautiful” pictures from the “ugly” ones? And separate the “objectively funny” jokes from the “ho-hum” ones?

As for the picture presented, why don’t you play the “cop-out” game: how would we know that she is not in eternal bliss now, to compensate for the end she had to suffer? And sprinkle it with another variant of the “explain-away-game”: we must all die eventually, so what does it matter if her life was a little shorter? From the standpoint of eternal bliss it is not relevant…

And if you say that I am insensitive, then you should realize that these types of “arguments” were all originated by your side.

 

[Shaolen]

True, but imprecise. The “should” and “should not” must be based upon the objective reality. The scientific method can tell us what reality is, but it can only help in deciding how should one behave.

Instead of playing the “emotion-game” posturing as a “refutation”, why don’t you present an actual epistemological method which would separate the “beautiful” pictures from the “ugly” ones? And separate the “objectively funny” jokes from the “ho-hum” ones?

As for the picture presented, why don’t you play the “cop-out” game: how would we know that she is not in eternal bliss now, to compensate for the end she had to suffer? And sprinkle it with another variant of the “explain-away-game”: we must all die eventually, so what does it matter if her life was a little shorter? From the standpoint of eternal bliss it is not relevant…

And if you say that I am insensitive, then you should realize that these types of “arguments” were all originated by your side.

Honestly I’m not sure if humor or beauty could be objective. Its an interesting thought. But I don’t see it myself. But morality is. The fact is we don’t and can’t know (at this point anyway) whether the girl is now experiencing bliss in the beatific vision. So you can put that statement aside. The reason this picture should spark a emotion of outrage is because it is showing an objectively wrong and evil event****

 

[Shaolen]

Happy new year btw!

 

[Latias]

Just to restate your position. Only the scientific method gives us knowledge of objective reality. Now since the scientific method cannot tell us anything about what “should” be or “should not” be. And since the scientific method cannot tell us what picture is “beautiful” or is “not beautiful,” then we should admit that neither morals nor aesthetics can be known as objective reality.

My refutation:

A distraught father in Syria holds the lifeless body of his decapitated daughter, executed by militants because she was of a Christian family. www.catholic.org

I am going to raise.

Certainly contemporary science cannot provide accounts for what is beautiful, in full. One can say that such theories of beautiful will involve some neuroscience to explain how certain image active certain regions in the brain and how that contributes to one’s subjective perception of beauty (and, of course, since there is variation of people’s neuroanatomy, some of this variation would cause different perceptions of beauty). Now my raise. Consider pornographic images and videos, there is nothing aesthetically pleasing (in an objective way) about these images, but they do produce neurophysiological reactions. This is an instance where one’s rational, detached understanding of beauty gets overwhelmed by the brain’s processing of those illusions and subsequent neurochemical processes to force one into a motivational state for sexual activity. “Pornography” is simply a property of some stimulus to evoke certain neurophysiological states and behaviors, while one can say the same about “beauty” (although the neurological states it triggers are much more mild).

On a more personal note. I wasn’t initially shocked at the picture at all. I was wondering whether if it was fake and why one would take a picture of that for public viewing. Perhaps, if the picture had higher quality, it would trigger revulsion instead of questions on whether she is a doll. I am also autistic, so I am not go at reading facial expressions (or even recognizing faces), so I cannot appreciate the emotional content of the picture on a visceral level. But I can appreciate drama if it was presented in real time with some context, such as on a show such as* House MD*.

 

[Bradski]

There was no earthly excuse for posting that picture. To use that event to try to prove a point is not justifiable in any way at all.

I’m asking that tdgesq request that the mods have it removed forthwith.

 

[tonyrey]

There was no earthly excuse for posting that picture. To use that event to try to prove a point is not justifiable in any way at all.

I’m asking that tdgesq request that the mods have it removed forthwith.

The harsh reality of evil is unmistakable regardless of what we claim to believe or disbelieve…