Philosophy Now Forum

Satyr wrote:He tore you to pieces.
You are welcome.

Begin by giving a definition of the #1.
Your weights and measurements depends on it.
Then give a definition of species.
Your reputation demands it.

These terms have been defined already, and science has moved along incredibly well with the definitions given. Because you lack any real knowledge of science, you hide in the only sandbox philosophy gives you -- the word-game playpen. In the mean time, scientists move right along, improving the world, inventing new things, and making new discoveries about the world around us. And never once do they waste their time to pause and consider your infantile questions. And hopefully, they will never do so.

Fag, I asked YOU to define them.
You are deferring, referring, hiding...again.

Go ahead go through your text, your scriptures and give me one definition.

Satyr wrote:Fag, I asked YOU to define them.
You are deferring, referring, hiding...again.

Go ahead go through your text, your scriptures and give me one definition.

You can ask, but when you ask me to do something, the power rests with me to answer or not. If I thought there was a point to the questions you asked, I would answer. However, as far as I can tell, the questions are childish and whatever answer I give will most likely lead to other childishness.

You are hiding again, little fag....a bit scared?

I ask for a simple definition for the #1...the very foundation of your vast knowledge.
Give it to us even if it will not be your own.
Stand behind another mind...again.

Until the closet homosexual finds a "cogent", coherent, scientific, definition for the very foundation of his religion and offers us a definition for the #1 , which will not expose him as the moron that he is and that will not resort to the "philosophy" which he stands above, let us use this time to meditate over the idea of stupidity.

I bet the fag is using this time to go through the scriptures and find something to save him from having his panties taken off in public.

Let us recap:
The hypocrite and effete boy says:

Fog wrote:These terms have been defined already, and science has moved along incredibly well with the definitions given.

Perfect, then there will be no problem.

"Perfect"...is that part of the definition?
I do not see anything perfect....does anyone else?

Fog wrote: Because you lack any real knowledge of science, you hide in the only sandbox philosophy gives you -- the word-game playpen.

Brilliant...therefore this fag being in the know and independent from philosophy can easily provide us with a definition for a basic and simple numerical symbol of the #1 and its antipodal value the 0.

Then the fag makes these remarkable declarations:

Fog wrote:In the mean time, scientists move right along, improving the world, inventing new things, and making new discoveries about the world around us.

In other words it is taken for granted that what is occurring now is "improvement".
I do think Religions claim to be "improving" mankind basing their own "cogent" assumptions on the presupposition of a Creator God and a Beginning.

The fag, I do believe, is claiming the toaster-oven and the automobile as an indispensable part of his happiness.
The fag does not want to think beyond utility and his fag ass.

Fog wrote:And never once do they waste their time to pause and consider your infantile questions. And hopefully, they will never do so.

In other words they have not given a definition because they cannot be bothered?
Yet, everything they claim is based on this presupposition and perhaps many of their failures can be blamed on their inability to define what they presuppose.
The fag only cares if the batteries running his dildo, the one he shoves up his anus every night, works. How and why and what the "logic" behind it is he is not "bothered with".

So, if a preacher can "heal" someone, anyone, by touching him, he too does not question the how or why, just as long as it works. He cannot be bothered.
Yes, I think we are working towards a more "perfect" definition for the term automaton.

Interesting that in the first sentence he declares the definition as a given...then in the last he declares it nonsensical.
Therefore, we are to accept the premises that those who "cannot be bothered" nor should be bothered, have already bothered....and still no definition.

Postman, Neil wrote:---What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.
What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us information.
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.
Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble-puppy.

---America is, in fact, the leading case in point of what may be thought of as the third great crisis in western education.
The first occurred in the fifth century B.C. when Athens underwent a change from an oral culture to an alphabet-writing culture. To understand what this meant, we must read Plato.
The second occurred in the sixteenth century, when Europe underwent a radical transformation as a result of the printing press. To understand what this meant, we must read John Locke.
The third is happening now, in America, as a result of the electronic revolution, particularly the invention of television.
To understand what this means, we must read Marshall Mcluhan.

McLuhan, Marshall wrote:---Anyone who tries to make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn't know the first thing about either.

---One of the effects of living with electric information is that we live habitually in a state of information overload. There's always more than you can cope with.

Postman, Neil wrote:---Television is altering the meaning of ‘being informed’ by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation.
Disinformation does not mean false information.
It means misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information - information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.

---When we begin relying on the Internet for all of our news and information we will turn into a nation of zombies.

I give you, ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A: ForgedinHell
A specimen that can just as easily be renamed: Zombie...a hellish creature indeed.

Satyr wrote:Is science infected by prejudices?

Not necessarily prejudices, but certainly by a priori views of what kinds of things ought to be considered 'real'.

For instance: there was a discussion in New Scientist about the question of whether current cosmological theories do or do not require a definite 'moment of creation' (Why physicists can't avoid a creation event, New Scientist, 14th Jan 2012).

...two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.

One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed... The other suggests that the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge.

Now the point of raising this is not whether there is or is not such an event (which may be an interminable debate.) It is simply that certain kinds of ideas are less likely to be considered in regards to questions of this type, because they seem 'religious'. So this certainly seems like a prejdiuce to me.

Here is another example: from Scientific American (Ellis, G. R. (2011). DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). Scientific American, 305(2), 38-43.) This article notes that one of the factors underlying the popularity of such theories is that it provides an explanation for the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the Universe, which is an argument used by theistic philosophers in support of Deity (e.g. McGrath, Lennox, et al):

Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence.

So here, a 'tidy explanation' to an awkward debating point is one grounds to suppose that there might be multiple or infinite universes - never mind that such a theory might ultimately prove to be beyond the scope of science!

So, I am inclined to support the Original Post. Within the scope of the natural science, there is no question of it being 'a religion'. However when it is used by the apologists of scientism to support metaphysical arguments which are truly out of scope for science, in books by authors such as Stenger, Krauss, Dawkins, etc, it is clearly functioning as a pseudo or quasi religion, and ought to be regarded accordingly.

Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence.

It's an explanation, but it's neither scientific nor tidy. Instead of supposing a creator, it supposes the existence of a multiverse. Einstein's theory of relativity is tidy, whereas the multiverse is the biggest sledgehammer anybody invented in order to smite a question. Why do we exist? Because everything exists somewhere in a supposed multiverse? It's an interesting metaphysical speculation and a possible answer, but it's not science.

There are questions that science can answer and questions that religion can answer. Answers found outside of observable reality are religious answers, whether they involve God or other universes. Science can answer the question "how?" while "why?" demands a religious answer. When scientists try to answer the "why?" question, they act as priests.

Jonathan.s wrote:

Satyr wrote:Is science infected by prejudices?

Not necessarily prejudices, but certainly by a priori views of what kinds of things ought to be considered 'real'.

For instance: there was a discussion in New Scientist about the question of whether current cosmological theories do or do not require a definite 'moment of creation' (Why physicists can't avoid a creation event, New Scientist, 14th Jan 2012).

Excellent. Which proves that there is a prejudice that needs to be addressed.
Pinker mentions them in regards to the humanities, where social and cultural infections are less readily perceived and less likely to be pointed out; for him they are as the "tabula rasa" - the idea that man is born clean of all determining, or natural, influences and that all is up to nurturing; the noble savage, the idea that primitive man, or "authentic" man, or man outside culture and society is a "good man...the idea that it is culture, or particular kinds of culture (nurture) which man violent, greedy, sexist, racist etc; and the "ghost in the machine" the most popular of them all in our modern times - the idea that there is an immutable core to man, that appearances are hiding a soul, a spirit, Kant's "thing-in-itself, Spinoza's substance.

Jonathan.s wrote:Now the point of raising this is not whether there is or is not such an event (which may be an interminable debate.) It is simply that certain kinds of ideas are less likely to be considered in regards to questions of this type, because they seem 'religious'. So this certainly seems like a prejdiuce to me.

This is how asking the question and how you ask it presupposes a response.
That you ask:"how did the universe begin?" already implies that this is a sensible question and demands an answer based no that presupposition.

Take mathematics, which the fag FartUpTheAnus cannot offer a definition to the #1 in.
Let us take 1+1=2. It is logical right?
But it is only logical within the premises which it presupposes. that is, it presupposes the 1, as a static, thing, an absolute point in space/time, and then drawn conclusion from that presupposition. So it's logic consists in remaining true to the presuppositions already made.

Jonathan.s wrote:Here is another example: from Scientific American (Ellis, G. R. (2011). DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). Scientific American, 305(2), 38-43.) This article notes that one of the factors underlying the popularity of such theories is that it provides an explanation for the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the Universe, which is an argument used by theistic philosophers in support of Deity (e.g. McGrath, Lennox, et al):

Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence.

So here, a 'tidy explanation' to an awkward debating point is one grounds to suppose that there might be multiple or infinite universes - never mind that such a theory might ultimately prove to be beyond the scope of science!

Never said that it was.
I said that science is based no philosophy and in recent times with Quantum Physics and SuperString Theory and MutiVervses it is returning to its roots.
My response was to the douche-bag who simply goes from thread to thread posting declarative sentences like:"You are wrong, science already disproved this".
This is a religious tactic not a rational one. A religious fanatic would say something similar, like: "You are in error and a sinner, the fathers have already death with this and the scripture disproves you and proves otherwise."
But we are dealing with a moron here who has replaced God with Math and simply defers his thinking to the "authorities" of his time and place.
so fuck him....back to the subject.

In the case of multiverses one would have to redefine what universe means.
Science does not deal in absolutes but in probabilities.
This is why all constructs based no science are ephemeral...in other words imperfect.
Why?
Because they use static models, referring to mental abstractions, founded no the way the mind works, to deal with fluid environments that show no absolute, static, state.
This is why Newtonian Physics is under assault now from Quantum Physics.

Still no definition for the singularity, the #1, huh?


Well, it seems that despite the fact that the question has already been answered nobody can post a link, cut and paste it, here so we can see it.
The very foundation of science and not one of these bachelor degree morons can provide us with a definition, silencing us uneducated louts once and for all.

A single definition of the singular...the #1 in s a clear and concise way not using philosophical concepts.

Is the #1 as mysterious as the christian God?
Do you need to be initiated in the word of God by the priesthood to "get to see Him"?

Do we defer to scripture or some priestly class who knows?

Satyr wrote:Is science infected by prejudices?

Probably.

We all know of the scientific method and peer reviews but this does not make social and cultural infections impossible when the peers are mostly populated by members of the same mimetic group.

Why 'infections'? Whats a 'mimetic group'? You believe with Dawkins whimsy? Where is the evidence for a smallest inheritance unit of meaning?

Does the modern reliance of science upon funding corrupt its mission?

Maybe, but I'd need to understand what you think its 'mission' is?

Who funds these scientific explorations and how is a scientist to avoid being guided by their requirements?
Is the threat upon career and reputation and family to be considered insignificant?

Has it been any different?

Is modern science free from religious or popular mythologies?

Can any subject be? I'd say that 'science' has a better framework than most for dealing with such things but given 'they' are a certain type of epistemological metaphysician I'm not sure what the issue is?

Take the search for the "god particle" or the exploration of The Big Bang as a beginning to existence, is this valid exploration or is it based on a social and/or cultural predisposition?

Which ones do you think they are?

Upon what grounds does a "free-thinking" mind seek the beginning or the end to existence? What evidence leads him to the supposition that such a thing, an event, a point in space/time, is actual, real, existent?

If you mean the Physicists then I thought it that all galaxies appear to be moving away from each other no matter which way we look so there is something called spacetime that is expanding away from something that we call a point but bears little resemblance to the thing that the term describes when we use it in space and time as here we don't make time a physical thing, i.e. a distance or space.

Is all exploration of human nature, particularly those concerning racial and sexual matters, free from social and cultural pressures?

Depends who you mean is doing this exploration?

Who would dare ask the right questions?

Go on, give us a clue.

Does how one asks a question and the form this asking takes or that one asks at all, guide the outcome?

If the one asking is seriously seeking an answer then yes I'd say, otherwise I think they pretty much think they know the answer and are asking the question and choosing the form for an effect.
If so what criteria should guide what questions we ask and how we ask them?[/quote]Enquire as to the positive intention behind the behaviour?

You aren't pulling me into that vortex of inane, unending, interrogation, Twat.
I don't make the same mistake twice.

Twat...you are boring and simple.
You say nothing of interest but only repeat the popular and the common.
You are an agency of attrition.
A waste of time.
Not even your pitiful "challenges" manage to rise to a level where they,a t the very least, can be used a springboard, a motivation, to engage deeper issues which the observer might enjoy.