Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

I'm not. I'm a moral objectivist.

Give me a piece of evidence that your God is a true one.

Thump bahman with this...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

IC!

[Will Bouwman]

...you clearly don't appreciate that even the most specialised definitions are decided in the same flawed way you condemn popular dictionaries for.

Actually, I very much do. And I accept that even the pronouncements of specialist dictionaries are not guaranteed to be inerrant, even if they are possibly (though not always) more accurate than those found in dictionaries aimed at the general public.

What makes the pronouncements of a dictionary "accurate"?

Well, if "we do need more specialized definitions for ALL ideologies", that would be consistent with there being dictionaries of such definitions.

Your theory is that if we "need" something, then it's bound to exist?

Could you show me your reasoning that led you to that suggestion?

So what does that {the scientific method} method involve?

Goldstein and Goldstein summarize it quite nicely:

I'm not one to criticise typos, but it's Goodstein and Goodstein. A philosophy forum doesn't require Harvard referencing, but at least get the names right and provide a link.

"Bacon's scientific methodology can be summarized as follows: 1. The scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations; 2. these observations lead infallibly to correct generalizations or axioms; and 3. the test of a correct axiom is that it leads to new discoveries."

I could expand that. In the ideal, the scientific method is pattern of procedure, beginning with an intuition that leads to a hypothesis...

So in your view, Bacon was wrong to assert that the "scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations"

[Age]

...you clearly don't appreciate that even the most specialised definitions are decided in the same flawed way you condemn popular dictionaries for.

Actually, I very much do. And I accept that even the pronouncements of specialist dictionaries are not guaranteed to be inerrant, even if they are possibly (though not always) more accurate than those found in dictionaries aimed at the general public.

What makes the pronouncements of a dictionary "accurate"?

The exact same 'thing', which makes the uncovering, and thus knowing, of the actual and irrefutable Truth of 'things' possible, as well.

Well, if "we do need more specialized definitions for ALL ideologies", that would be consistent with there being dictionaries of such definitions.

Your theory is that if we "need" something, then it's bound to exist?

Could you show me your reasoning that led you to that suggestion?

So what does that {the scientific method} method involve?

Goldstein and Goldstein summarize it quite nicely:

I'm not one to criticise typos, but it's Goodstein and Goodstein. A philosophy forum doesn't require Harvard referencing, but at least get the names right and provide a link.

"Bacon's scientific methodology can be summarized as follows: 1. The scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations; 2. these observations lead infallibly to correct generalizations or axioms; and 3. the test of a correct axiom is that it leads to new discoveries."

I could expand that. In the ideal, the scientific method is pattern of procedure, beginning with an intuition that leads to a hypothesis...

So in your view, Bacon was wrong to assert that the "scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations"

[Immanuel Can]

There are over 4000 religions in the world and the followers of each one think that they are right and others are wrong.

Still irrelevant. There is literally an infinite number of wrong opinions about what 2+2 is...and all but one is wrong. So what's the point?

But you missed the meaning of what I said. Many religious explanations of morals -- even those that I would say are factually untrue -- can make a rational account of their view: meaning that IF what they believed were true, then certain moral axioms would rationally follow.

Yes, but how could they justify their belief given the fact that there are more than 4000 religions?

As above, the number of possible wrong answers is utterly irrelevant to the question of the existence of a right answer.

Subjectivism lacks this potential entirely. It cannot be made rational, even on its own terms; and that puts it behind all these various "religions" that can do that.

Without a piece of evidence,

But we do have evidence. However, you missed the point again.

A belief that is not rational on its own terms is bound to be wrong, regardless of whether or not it has evidence, or whether or not there are other opinions. That's becuase it isn't even possibly right. At least the other answers are possibly right, because rational.

You are also subjectivist given the fact that you only believe in God and don't have any evidence for Him.

That's certainly untrue. I have abundant evidence for Him. And I'll be happy to supply to you anything I can that you will accept as evidence.

I don't think that there is such a thing as strong evidence.[/quote]
On what do you base that conclusion?

Spiritual beings are very powerful and they can cheat us blind.

Let's say that's so. It changes nothing about the question of the existence of a right answer. All it tells us is there are wrong ones.

So tell me what kind of evidence you have that could convince me.

"...that would convince me," you ask? I couldn't possibly speak for you. Let me ask you, instead: what evidence would you allow to convince you?

But the original problem persists: we are not agreed on the defintion of "subjective." On a proper definition, I'm not at all a "subjectivist." But on yours, which I find both inconsistent and implausible, you might wrongly suppose I was merely campaigining for some sort of "subjectivity."

I don't agree with your definition of subjective.

Yes, I know. And you, yourself pointed out that so long as that is so, we're going to be speaking past one another, without any chance of understanding or arriving at a proper conclusion. And you were right: we're not capable of it, so long as you have that definition.

[Immanuel Can]

...you clearly don't appreciate that even the most specialised definitions are decided in the same flawed way you condemn popular dictionaries for.

Actually, I very much do. And I accept that even the pronouncements of specialist dictionaries are not guaranteed to be inerrant, even if they are possibly (though not always) more accurate than those found in dictionaries aimed at the general public.

What makes the pronouncements of a dictionary "accurate"?

Big topic, but let's keep it as simple as we can, for present purposes: a dictionary is "accurate" when it captures the most relevant facts about the thing it is defining with the greatest precision. In so doing, it should disambiguate the maximum number of simliar cases, of course, and eliminate all similar but not same items. It should provide the key details that distinguish the defined from everything else, particularly things likely to be confused with the defined.

Not so simple, is it? But that's not bad.

So what does that {the scientific method} method involve?

Goldstein and Goldstein summarize it quite nicely:

I'm not one to criticise typos, but it's Goodstein and Goodstein.

You're correct. My mistake. I apologize. But you found the site, so that's good. In any case, I was not using them as special authorities, but justas a short, quick starting point, and followed up their quick definition with an expansion of my own that was better, as you can see.

So in your view, Bacon was wrong to assert that the "scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations"

The problem, as Postmodernist critics have ably shown, is that scientific neutrality is an ideal that nobody can meet. And in science, as Polanyi has pointed out, we have to begin with an intution -- the scientist observes a phenomenon, and then he hypothesizes, and so on...

But wait. Polanyi points out the overlooked step: how does the scientist know what is "interesting," or what is "worthy of hypothesizing about"? That doesn't come from the scientific process itself, and isn't even included in its steps...but it's inevitably there. Before the hypothesis, some scientist has to say to himself, "Hey, I feel that that event deserves scientific attention and investigation." But the method doesn't tell him what to choose.

So what does he use? It's himself, his "personal knowledge," his intution that something is interesting, or anomalous, or worthy of inquiry. And that part of the process requires him to use things that are not neutral, such has his own areas of interest, his own curiosity, his own knowledge of previous science, and even whatever his own body is disposed toward at a given moment.

This means that there's no science in which the entity by which the scientific method is being used is not a human being. And human beings do have biases, predispositions, particular interests, and so on. So if we demand that all science must "start with unprejudiced (i.e. un-pre-judging, not involving the inclinations of a particular individual) observation," then no "science" would ever be done.

Consider this, if you will: if Newton had not been the particular man sitting under the apple tree (to quote the legend of dubious origin), would gravity have been discovered? If it had been a different scientist, would something different have been deduced, or nothing at all, if it had only been Fred the shoemaker sitting under that tree? But it must be obvious, must it not, that it would have been the fortuitious coming together of apple and Newton, at just the moment Newton was in the mood to hypothesize, that made the Newtonian discovery possible? So that wasn't something "unprejudiced" by the fact of Newton's particular personhood and interests? In fact, it was dependent on that?

So a totally neutral, impersonal science is a myth. A scientist is a human being. And no matter how neutral he tries to make himself, it's he that he brings to the equation. And that's what I find insufficient about that short definition.

[Age]

There are over 4000 religions in the world and the followers of each one think that they are right and others are wrong.

Still irrelevant. There is literally an infinite number of wrong opinions about what 2+2 is...and all but one is wrong. So what's the point?

The point is, you think, and sometimes even believe, you have and/or know the right answers, and know the truth, just like others do here. And, obviously, yours alone cannot be actually True and Right "immanuel can".

you are also proving irrefutably True that your chosen one is not the Right one. So now do you get 'the point'.

But you missed the meaning of what I said. Many religious explanations of morals -- even those that I would say are factually untrue -- can make a rational account of their view: meaning that IF what they believed were true, then certain moral axioms would rationally follow.

Yes, but how could they justify their belief given the fact that there are more than 4000 religions?

As above, the number of possible wrong answers is utterly irrelevant to the question of the existence of a right answer.

But you claiming that you have and/or know the 'right one' here is continually being countered and refuted by your own expressed musings.

Subjectivism lacks this potential entirely. It cannot be made rational, even on its own terms; and that puts it behind all these various "religions" that can do that.

Without a piece of evidence,

But we do have evidence. However, you missed the point again.

A belief that is not rational on its own terms is bound to be wrong,

Like the Truly irrational belief that God is male gendered is not just Wrong but also just had to be 'bound to be Wrong' anyway.

regardless of whether or not it has evidence, or whether or not there are other opinions. That's becuase it isn't even possibly right. At least the other answers are possibly right, because rational.

Just exactly like the belief that God is a 'he' could never ever even be a possibility of being Right.

Whilst what the actual True answer is to what God actually is, not just possibly True and Right but, actually, is what is True and Right.

As I can and will prove, irrefutably, True and Right.

You are also subjectivist given the fact that you only believe in God and don't have any evidence for Him.

That's certainly untrue. I have abundant evidence for Him. And I'll be happy to supply to you anything I can that you will accept as evidence.

I don't think that there is such a thing as strong evidence.

On what do you base that conclusion?[/quote]

I will accept absolutely any evidence at all that God is a so-called 'Him'.

I have even asked you to provide absolutely any evidence, for what you now are here claiming there is 'abundance evidence' for, yet to this day I have yet to see you provide absolutely any thing, other than of course saying and stating, 'It is written in the bible'.

Now, if this is the only 'evidence' you have that God, Itself, is male gendered, then, by all means, feel absolutely free to continue on with this belief of yours here. But surely even someone like you "immanuel can" would not expect absolutely any one to accept 'that' as any 'actual evidence' for a male gendered God, correct?

Also, will you provide any of the other alleged 'abundant evidence' that God is a 'Him'. Once, and if, you can just get past this part, then we can move onto finding out and seeing if God even actually exists or not. But, obviously, until then you are 'stuck' in your 'own tiny little world', and belief, that God is a 'Him'.

Spiritual beings are very powerful and they can cheat us blind.

Let's say that's so. It changes nothing about the question of the existence of a right answer. All it tells us is there are wrong ones.

you could not be more Right and Correct here "immanuel can".

So tell me what kind of evidence you have that could convince me.

"...that would convince me," you ask? I couldn't possibly speak for you. Let me ask you, instead: what evidence would you allow to convince you?

Conversely, what 'evidence' would 'you, "immanuel can", allow' to convince you that God does not exist or is not a 'Him'?

What can be clearly seen here is how all people are blinded and deafened by their own pre-existing beliefs and/or presumptions.

But the original problem persists: we are not agreed on the defintion of "subjective." On a proper definition, I'm not at all a "subjectivist." But on yours, which I find both inconsistent and implausible, you might wrongly suppose I was merely campaigining for some sort of "subjectivity."

I don't agree with your definition of subjective.

Yes, I know. And you, yourself pointed out that so long as that is so, we're going to be speaking past one another, without any chance of understanding or arriving at a proper conclusion. And you were right: we're not capable of it, so long as you have that definition.

So, as I have been saying and pointing out, continually throughout this forum, whilst human beings remained 'the way' that they are, and were, showing 'us' here, then 'they' could not evolve out and/or up to the next stage, or level, from which 'we' are already at.

[Age]

Actually, I very much do. And I accept that even the pronouncements of specialist dictionaries are not guaranteed to be inerrant, even if they are possibly (though not always) more accurate than those found in dictionaries aimed at the general public.

What makes the pronouncements of a dictionary "accurate"?

Big topic, but let's keep it as simple as we can, for present purposes: a dictionary is "accurate" when it captures the most relevant facts about the thing it is defining with the greatest precision.

But you very clearly do not seem to appreciate that a dictionaries definitions or even the most specialized definitions can be decided in the exact same flawed way as you are do, thus showing and revealing, here "immanuel can".

In so doing, it should disambiguate the maximum number of simliar cases, of course, and eliminate all similar but not same items. It should provide the key details that distinguish the defined from everything else, particularly things likely to be confused with the defined.

Not so simple, is it? But that's not bad.

Once, and if, you ever get to comprehend, understand, and know how the actual irrefutable Truth is found and obtained, then you will also see and recognize the actual 'flaw', which you are continually presenting for 'us' here.

Goldstein and Goldstein summarize it quite nicely:

I'm not one to criticise typos, but it's Goodstein and Goodstein.

You're correct. My mistake. I apologize. But you found the site, so that's good. In any case, I was not using them as special authorities, but justas a short, quick starting point, and followed up their quick definition with an expansion of my own that was better, as you can see.

So in your view, Bacon was wrong to assert that the "scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations"

The problem, as Postmodernist critics have ably shown, is that scientific neutrality is an ideal that nobody can meet.

Well, obviously, no adult in the days when this was being written, and especially so you "immanuel can", was 'meeting' 'unprejudiced observations'. However, it is extremely very simple and very easy, indeed, to start with a set of 'unprejudiced observations'.

Again, one just has to learn the 'know-how' of just 'how-to' do 'it'.

And in science, as Polanyi has pointed out, we have to begin with an intution -- the scientist observes a phenomenon, and then he hypothesizes, and so on...

This kind of belief or thinking is another reason why 'the world' was so messed up, and ill, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

But wait. Polanyi points out the overlooked step: how does the scientist know what is "interesting," or what is "worthy of hypothesizing about"? That doesn't come from the scientific process itself, and isn't even included in its steps...but it's inevitably there.

Again, once more 'we' can see here the Truly twisted and distorted thinking, which some people really had, back then.

Before the hypothesis, some scientist has to say to himself, "Hey, I feel that that event deserves scientific attention and investigation." But the method doesn't tell him what to choose.

Any 'hypothesis' can all to simply, easily, and/or quickly further 'prejudiced observations'. So, as I have been continually saying and pointing out here, it is always better to look at, and thus, see things from never a theory, hypothesis, guess, presumption, nor belief. That is; if one really wants to uncover, or find, understand, and know, the actual Truth of things.

So what does he use? It's himself, his "personal knowledge," his intution that something is interesting, or anomalous, or worthy of inquiry.

In other words, 'that one's' own pre-existing 'prejudices', which is the very reason why you human beings, in the days when this was being written, were, still, searching and looking for 'the answers', which have been HERE all along, 'blatantly staring you in the face', as some would say.

And that part of the process requires him to use things that are not neutral, such has his own areas of interest, his own curiosity, his own knowledge of previous science, and even whatever his own body is disposed toward at a given moment.

In other words, doing 'this' here will just lead to more, very Wrongly worded, 'discovery' of what will be purported to be 'evidence' for what is already 'prejudiced' towards.

This means that there's no science in which the entity by which the scientific method is being used is not a human being. And human beings do have biases, predispositions, particular interests, and so on.

Of course you adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, have these things. This is very clearly evident throughout not just your writings in this forum but in lots of areas of your thinking and doing as well. But, just as obvious, is the fact that you did not have to have them, have to maintain them, nor even keep them.

But, again, you are all absolutely free to think and/or do whatever you want to.

So if we demand that all science must "start with unprejudiced (i.e. un-pre-judging, not involving the inclinations of a particular individual) observation," then no "science" would ever be done.

This is absolutely False and Wrong. And, proved True by the greatest "scientists" and "philosophers', which is just the younger of you human beings.

See, they look at, and see, 'the world' and 'Universe' for exactly what they are.

Consider this, if you will: if Newton had not been the particular man sitting under the apple tree (to quote the legend of dubious origin), would gravity have been discovered?

Probably, one day.

And, 'gravity', itself, was not so-called 'discovered'. A realization that material things are just attracted to each other, which was decided to be referred to by the name and label 'gravity', was, however.

If it had been a different scientist, would something different have been deduced, or nothing at all, if it had only been Fred the shoemaker sitting under that tree? But it must be obvious, must it not, that it would have been the fortuitious coming together of apple and Newton, at just the moment Newton was in the mood to hypothesize, that made the Newtonian discovery possible?

Absolutely every thing in the Universe is created by the coming-together of at least two other things, including all new ideas or views, and the so-called
'discoveries'.

So that wasn't something "unprejudiced" by the fact of Newton's particular personhood and interests?

But there was no actual 'science' being done, obviously. One, obviously, does not have to be doing 'science' or studying something to just come to a realization, or to just become aware, of some thing, which was obviously already existing way before the Wrongly called 'discovery' of 'it'.

In fact, it was dependent on that?

Why the question mark here?

So a totally neutral, impersonal science is a myth.

you do not appear to be fully following and comprehending what was actually being said and claimed here previously.

A scientist is a human being.

This is obviously False and Wrong as well.

Which as, once again, can be and will be proved irrefutably True, also.

But you are still quite some ways off from learning and understanding this irrefutable Fact.

And no matter how neutral he tries to make himself, it's he that he brings to the equation.

But only if 'he' so chooses to.

And that's what I find insufficient about that short definition.

And where your confusion lays here "immanuel can" shines very brightly and can be very clearly seen and recognized.

[Will Bouwman]

So in your view, Bacon was wrong to assert that the "scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations"

The problem, as Postmodernist critics have ably shown, is that scientific neutrality is an ideal that nobody can meet. And in science, as Polanyi has pointed out, we have to begin with an intution -- the scientist observes a phenomenon, and then he hypothesizes, and so on...

But wait. Polanyi points out the overlooked step: how does the scientist know what is "interesting," or what is "worthy of hypothesizing about"?

Well, Polanyi is just one link in a chain of thought that goes back through Hume's "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions" all the way to Protagoras claiming that "Man is the measure of all things." Ibn al-Haytham recognised that images are formed in the brain and are thus subject to interpretation. He has a much better claim to be the father of the scientific method than Francis Bacon whose legacy, as I have pointed out, is more his influence on the founders of the Royal Society than his method.

So what does he use? It's himself, his "personal knowledge," his intution that something is interesting, or anomalous, or worthy of inquiry. And that part of the process requires him to use things that are not neutral, such has his own areas of interest, his own curiosity, his own knowledge of previous science, and even whatever his own body is disposed toward at a given moment.

This means that there's no science in which the entity by which the scientific method is being used is not a human being. And human beings do have biases, predispositions, particular interests, and so on. So if we demand that all science must "start with unprejudiced (i.e. un-pre-judging, not involving the inclinations of a particular individual) observation," then no "science" would ever be done.

How do human beings, you for instance, manage to escape their "biases, predispositions, particular interests, and so on" when they are doing religion?
What does it mean for your assertion that:

...a dictionary is "accurate" when it captures the most relevant facts about the thing it is defining with the greatest precision.

[bahman]

I'm not. I'm a moral objectivist.

Give me a piece of evidence that your God is a true one.

Thump bahman with this...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

IC!

Which clip do you want me to watch? There are many.

[bahman]

There are over 4000 religions in the world and the followers of each one think that they are right and others are wrong.

Still irrelevant. There is literally an infinite number of wrong opinions about what 2+2 is...and all but one is wrong. So what's the point?

It is very relevant. I want to know why you chose your religion over the other 4000. So what is your evidence?

But you missed the meaning of what I said. Many religious explanations of morals -- even those that I would say are factually untrue -- can make a rational account of their view: meaning that IF what they believed were true, then certain moral axioms would rationally follow.

Yes, but how could they justify their belief given the fact that there are more than 4000 religions?

As above, the number of possible wrong answers is utterly irrelevant to the question of the existence of a right answer.

Why do you think that other religions are wrong?

Subjectivism lacks this potential entirely. It cannot be made rational, even on its own terms; and that puts it behind all these various "religions" that can do that.

Without a piece of evidence,

But we do have evidence. However, you missed the point again.

A belief that is not rational on its own terms is bound to be wrong, regardless of whether or not it has evidence, or whether or not there are other opinions. That's becuase it isn't even possibly right. At least the other answers are possibly right, because rational.

Rational!? So we are back to where we were. You are talking about reason as the main pillar of objectivity. So what is your reason for your religion to be right and others to be wrong?

That's certainly untrue. I have abundant evidence for Him. And I'll be happy to supply to you anything I can that you will accept as evidence.

I don't think that there is such a thing as strong evidence.

On what do you base that conclusion?

I already mentioned that Spiritual beings are very powerful and they can cheat us.

Spiritual beings are very powerful and they can cheat us blind.

Let's say that's so. It changes nothing about the question of the existence of a right answer. All it tells us is there are wrong ones.

So either give me evidence or a reason for what your religion is the right one?

So tell me what kind of evidence you have that could convince me.

"...that would convince me," you ask? I couldn't possibly speak for you. Let me ask you, instead: what evidence would you allow to convince you?

Let's say that the evidence that convinces you. I know you studied a few other religions. I am wondering on what basis you dropped other religions and picked up your current religion.

But the original problem persists: we are not agreed on the defintion of "subjective." On a proper definition, I'm not at all a "subjectivist." But on yours, which I find both inconsistent and implausible, you might wrongly suppose I was merely campaigining for some sort of "subjectivity."

I don't agree with your definition of subjective.

Yes, I know. And you, yourself pointed out that so long as that is so, we're going to be speaking past one another, without any chance of understanding or arriving at a proper conclusion. And you were right: we're not capable of it, so long as you have that definition.

For you objective is right and subjective is wrong. Why bother and use other words instead of right and wrong?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So in your view, Bacon was wrong to assert that the "scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations"

The problem, as Postmodernist critics have ably shown, is that scientific neutrality is an ideal that nobody can meet. And in science, as Polanyi has pointed out, we have to begin with an intuition -- the scientist observes a phenomenon, and then he hypothesizes, and so on...

Curious the employment of opinion and argument of the Postmodernists to support (one supposes ultimately) an ur-religious position.

The solution to this rhetorical word-puzzle is rather simple: though it may be true that the realization that gravity is a real force in our world arose first from *intuition*, the intuition that it is (let's say) God's mysterious hand the lowers the apple down to the ground is a false-intuition. Further, that some *intuitions* reflect reality and therefore are reality-based intuitions, and that these intuitions, later, are always proven. That is, a proof exists by which the intuition is verified.

Trippy, eh?

But wait. Polanyi points out the overlooked step: how does the scientist know what is "interesting," or what is "worthy of hypothesizing about"? That doesn't come from the scientific process itself, and isn't even included in its steps...but it's inevitably there. Before the hypothesis, some scientist has to say to himself, "Hey, I feel that that event deserves scientific attention and investigation." But the method doesn't tell him what to choose.

What is *interesting*, or what was interesting, to those who began the realization-processes that resulted in science as we understand it (Thales, Anaximander, etc.) is that they, like us, were men situated in their world. So naturally what interested them was, and could only be, the things of their world. What distinguished those particular men was that they set their will to avoid being taken in by outrageous theories or speculations and to focus on tangibles relevant to their immediate world.

So the question "What is worth hypothesizing about" is a very good one. It is quite axial, in fact. But one could start with a position of negation: to separate out of the picture all that is not really relevant and 'worthy of hypothesis". So, and just for one example, if one is to *hypothesize* a migration of people from one land to another, and to speculate on how a shallow body of water was crossed, one would likely do well to eliminate the *hypothesis* that a god-being separated the waters (etc. etc. etc.) If perhaps one's *intuition* proposed the god-being's intervention, a sensible counter-intuition would -- to have a reality-based sense -- eliminate that intuition and subsequently propose a more likely one.

So as it pertains to migrations (and to many other things by extension) the act of hypothesis is restrained by grounded thinking -- despite any barking from the camp of the Postmodernists.

To say:

That doesn't come from the scientific process itself

Is flatly false. However, one must recognize that a man's decisions about what to hypothesize about does depend, let's say, on what he hopes to get out of the process of hypothesization. He may at one time have been satisfied with wild speculations with *no base in reality*, and perhaps the speculations brought him something, or satisfied him. But then -- obviously -- something changed. What?

Explanations have a certain power and force, right? We seek *final explanations* that seem to us as final and in that we are satisfied as long as the explanation holds, right?

So, one has to ask the question: What satisfaction is offered through a thoroughly outlandish explanation? Obviously, this turns back on the question of what is worth hypothesization? To what should we devote ourselves?

So what does he use? It's himself, his "personal knowledge," his intution that something is interesting, or anomalous, or worthy of inquiry. And that part of the process requires him to use things that are not neutral, such has his own areas of interest, his own curiosity, his own knowledge of previous science, and even whatever his own body is disposed toward at a given moment.

What is the alternative? These are not the best questions insofar as they cast doubt on man as instrument. If someone told you to go examine a tree and provide a description of it, would you not use your eyes? When we see something are we *intuiting* it? Similarly, you'd have no choice but your *interest, your *curiosity*, your *previous knowledge base*.

What is the alternative, Brother Immanuel?

[I hope that you see here, Dear Immanuel, that once one is on to your reasoning and rhetorical methods that it becomes very easy indeed to see through your subterfuges. You are interesting because you have, sort of, mastered an intellectual act. You are aware of the terms of discourse and the methods of academic communication, but you original premises are strangely convoluted. Or put another ways they convolute your bizarre conclusions. I devote 2 chapters to you and your problem in The Course. Check it out!]

This means that there's no science in which the entity by which the scientific method is being used is not a human being. And human beings do have biases, predispositions, particular interests, and so on. So if we demand that all science must "start with unprejudiced (i.e. un-pre-judging, not involving the inclinations of a particular individual) observation," then no "science" would ever be done.

Once you have ventured out in the direction established by initial false-premises (badly grounded hypotheses) it just gets more and more convoluted! You will not be able to escape the convolutions until you make a *manly decision* to admit the fault.

But this *fault* would naturally involve a deeper examination of what is at the very core of your belief-system. We cannot perhaps assign an absolutely clear and description label to it though I have attempted the one *religious fanaticism*. It is the intrusion of an absolutely outlandish *description* that dominates the mind. Indeed it determines perception and interpretation in so many different areas.

Consider this, if you will: if Newton had not been the particular man sitting under the apple tree (to quote the legend of dubious origin), would gravity have been discovered? If it had been a different scientist, would something different have been deduced, or nothing at all, if it had only been Fred the shoemaker sitting under that tree? But it must be obvious, must it not, that it would have been the fortuitious coming together of apple and Newton, at just the moment Newton was in the mood to hypothesize, that made the Newtonian discovery possible? So that wasn't something "unprejudiced" by the fact of Newton's particular personhood and interests? In fact, it was dependent on that?

All I can do is tell you a story from my own experience. I stuggled with a *strange intuition* for the longest time. Indeed I went a little crazy over it. I could not sleep. My wife got upset and I had to sleep outside with the chickens up in a tree. But I stuck by my *intuition*. Finally, after wandering in the forest for an entire month I resolved to retreat into a cave under a local waterfall with my astrolabe. I went to work on the intuition and, lo and behold! it bore a wondrous fruit. I came out one morning and said to my wife as tears welled in my eyes:

"The Earth is round, like an orange."

The real question here is Where would Immanuel Can take us if he, like Fred the Shoemaker, sat under that hypothetical tree.

"It must be obvious, must it not ...."

It must! It must!

So a totally neutral, impersonal science is a myth. A scientist is a human being. And no matter how neutral he tries to make himself, it's he that he brings to the equation. And that's what I find insufficient about that short definition.

You devilish rhetor! So, there really was a Garden of Eden after all!

[Will Bouwman]

...though it may be true that the realization that gravity is a real force in our world arose first from *intuition*, the intuition that it is (let's say) God's mysterious hand the lowers the apple down to the ground is a false-intuition.

Good luck proving that, Gus. While we can measure gravity and build rockets to overcome it, we still don't know what causes it. I don't happen to think God is pushing everything together, but were he, it wouldn't make any difference to our calculations unless the old boy decided to mess with our heads.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...though it may be true that the realization that gravity is a real force in our world arose first from *intuition*, the intuition that it is (let's say) God's mysterious hand the lowers the apple down to the ground is a false-intuition.

Good luck proving that, Gus. While we can measure gravity and build rockets to overcome it, we still don't know what causes it. I don't happen to think God is pushing everything together, but were he, it wouldn't make any difference to our calculations unless the old boy decided to mess with our heads.

But I know, Will.

And if you'd only resolve to become less of a cheapskate and sign up for The 10-Week Email Course you might know, too.

[You see I have been able to get God to stop the Apple in mid-fall and raise it up again.]

Have you ever dropped something, a ball for instance? It’s a bit of a daft question, because who hasn’t?

[Will Bouwman]

I don't happen to think God is pushing everything together, but were he, it wouldn't make any difference to our calculations unless the old boy decided to mess with our heads.

But I know, Will.

And if you'd only resolve to become less of a cheapskate and sign up for The 10-Week Email Course you might know, too.

[You see I have been able to get God to stop the Apple in mid-fall and raise it up again.]

Well, something's messed with your head.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, something's messed with your head.

God, Will. God!