Thank you. I’ll read this.
Like I just mentioned, I’ll try stepping back a bit because I don’t know how to approach this without stepping on toes. I’m good at affecting those with religious or extreme political views but not when speaking to those I share views with but come from a different background.
I listed all of the things I think you are doing in the other thread. You seem to want to concentrate on your logic instead of those. Those are the problems. Not backgrounds.
That’s confusing. Who’s “no initial inputs” are you referring to?
Specifically what kind of “differences of methodology” are you referring to?
Earlier you said the “scientific process”, I like referring to science as a set of rules intended to cut out human ego as much as possible from their deliberations.
{As in: We need each other to keep ourselves honest}
What do you think science should be open to that it isn’t currently open to?
Can you provide any examples?
What about fundamental honesty - as in honesty in reporting evidence and facts, honesty in presenting the arguments of others, honesty as in listening to and considering new evidence.
@scottmayers I can’t say I agree with much of what you are writing, heck I’m not even understanding a lot of it, but its interesting reading just the same.
I hope you don’t disappear, since you’re more interesting than many and offer a bit of promise of a little actual constructive dialogue. Even if the sausage-making gets in the way, I know the feeling and I can relate to being chided by Lausten. He’s okay and is constrained by his position and background - whereas, I sense a bit of kindred spirit, born on the wrong side of tracks, too easily dismissed, so what’s to do, but rattle the cage now and then. 
Keep hammering away on trying to enunciate what you’re wanting to say.
Regarding today’s degenerating communication between left and right - why does most everyone keep side stepping the fact that it’s been orchestrated by decades worth of a few super rich quite literally brainwashing people on a diet of deliberate lies and misrepresentation, all for personal control and power.
For details Naomi Oreskes “Merchants of Doubt” and what’s his name’s, “Republican War on Science,” the EXXON Papers and such. There is overwhelming documentation that there’s been a deliberate strategic effort to fabricate doubt, to saw doubt, too amplify doubt and resentment towards science - regardless of known facts.
But, everyone continues tippy toeing around that, as though the current meltdown just happened via natural causes.
Good point CC. I don’t care if Scott prattles on about etymology as long as he doesn’t insult people for not agreeing with him. My first response was a statement about what I personally accept as evidence. I wasn’t claiming to be in a castle that he couldn’t enter. Those methods are my preference. He engaged me about it, and expanded to anyone else engaging him, and claimed CFI as a whole is against him.
I do point to the rules, but there is very little there about the scientific method or rules of logic, that’s up to us. I would say this, from the FAQ is relevant
Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized. To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not.
If someone doesn’t like that there is a rule that says a member here can point out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications, then take it up in Issues and Complaints. Could be an interesting conversation. Scott has used “political” in a way I don’t quite understand, something about his topic not being one that could be anything but political. The rule/example quote above is referring to not calling someone a “Democrap” or any other slur. Scott kind of skirts that line of getting insulting, because he feels insulted when we point out his lack of expertise. I don’t know how to resolve that.
Why does it require being anything? You are likely assuming this would be some ‘god’? I am arguing that Totality itself should have either no origin or an origin from absolutely nothing. Certainly if there is no god, nature has to evolve from absolutely nothing at all, right? Thus, given it would have an infinitely less capacity to ‘reason’ let alone have something like a ‘creative mind’ as we do, there has to be an apriori means of arguing from no initial inputs.
Only logic. Science is our means of trying to understand what the logical mechanisms of nature are; But, I’m saying that the ultimate logic of Totality has to derive from a state of no laws, not even our own particular universe’s laws on the basis of the whole. “Totality” is just the label for the absolute whole reality that contains all possible universes including absolutely nothing at all.
I don’t think that science proper should have a say because it can only deal with our direct process of reasoning based upon our particular universe and our senses. If humans (or similar conscious beings where they may exist) were not here, ‘science’ has no meaning, correct? We do not create reality just for observing it. So I am arguing that Nature has to have an absurdly simple origin that needs no prior existence for initiating. [if there is an origin at all]
[Note on my terminology: I will use “Nature” cardinally so that those who are religious can substitute ‘God’ for this. Then “nature” will be the non-cardinal use where we think of the outside world exclusive of human intervention. “Totality”, is more correct when considering all reality absolutely. For the religious, this would then include their believed god(s), or mystical places, like heaven, hell, or purgatory, etc. The idea of my terminology is to be most broad and without bias to any religion. The only obstacle for the religious would then be about any taboos they hold against questioning these at all.]
What does this have to do with anything? Oh, right, …you are presuming some religious prepatory argument. I am most ‘atheist’ and ‘gnostically’ so, meaning that I believe that I can also argue against any given religious belief. But to approach this without bias when not expecting to debate religion when speaking of Nature, this has to be approached agnostically.
Hmmm…? You’re just so cool!?
I’m not assuming anything , I’m trying to figure what you are trying to say.
That seems off to me. Logic is a tool of science, but science itself is about gathering and processing evidence/data - it’s the facts that drive scientific thinking. Logic simply being one of tools in their arsenal, not the glue that holds science together, that’s what evidence is all about.
Doesn’t the Big Bang theory in science do that?
Those two paragraphs lost me.
Here’s another place you lost me.
First off, I’m too confused by what you are trying to say to be presuming anything.
Secondly, don’t fall into the same trap of presuming to understand where I’m coming from. Though if you’re curious about that you might visit the introduction thread I started yesterday.
Then the relevance of “honesty” - doesn’t a sane society require trust between people. Doesn’t trust require people to be honest about their own motives and then honest in dealing with others, and honesty in representing what the other says. To me it seems that respecting honesty is the foundation of civility and healthy community. Of course, no one is perfect, and of course, I’ve let lies slip through my lips, but then there’s that nagging conscience that lets me know I’m in the wrong when I do so.
and so on and so forth . . .
I’ve no idea what that says, even though I’ve going over that sentence over and over.
Nature = everything?
Why would discussing “Nature” force the dialogue to religion.
That’s not cool.
Are you mocking Lausten?
Because that the way it comes across.
Do you have a problem with rules, municipal ordinances, health and safety regulations, laws of the land?
Do you resent discussion forums having rules and moderators?
Can you explain your purpose with that comment and the video? Was it simply being pissy or were you trying to make a constructive point there?
Do you believe a modicum of decorum is important, or to hell with it, long live the anarchy???
It would be ‘off’ to you if you don’t know that science is a subset of logic. Science is both an institute AND the what people are able to do locally and independently. Science was created because some people cannot follow logic. Galileo proved that gravity is independent of its mass LOGICALLY, but the Pope, whom he tried to appeal to, was insulted and why he was banned to continue his work in isolation and moderation. The ‘science’ part was not the ‘proof’, it was the demonstrations that he used to both show the logic and in more particular need to measure the specific force of gravity.
Note that he too was interpreted by the church as verging on supposed ‘insult’. He used Simplicus as the name for some of the arguments posed against him by the Pope. The use of science is INDUCTIVE and is a weaker form of ‘proof’ that is political because it requires sharing processes amongst a convention of those who negotiated the terms for practice.
Science means “to sense” and so is rightfully the “logic of observation” that only extends it to formal logic distinct from the practice. But most (not all) believe also, like you do, that science is somehow the means to rule over the logic; but if this was the case, then the math, a subset of logic proper, would be able to speak for itself without the observations. The reason for science was not because it was ‘superior’ to logic but because we needed to induce the initial input premises for the the top-down approach to work. The scientists up to Einstein were logical first and foremost, used thought experiments and their intuition to develop theories and only THEN use science to test it.
But wait, you are using innuendo here to imply that I’m the one being dishonest? Funny! Honesty is also not to falsely malign one as being anti-science when you lack the evidence of this of me here. And furthermore, you just asserted that I should not “fall into the same trap of presuming to understand where (you) are coming from.” yet it is alright for you to do so of me?
I was clear in my definitions and if you cannot follow, you can’t be qualified to discuss this with me in terms of logic. But I don’t believe you did not follow. You are using intentional deception or are in need of some logic training.
Is it logically possible that “nothing” can exist? Seems to me that is a paradox, a zero state, but impossible symmetry, which must be resolved by a logical symmetry breaking, a first quantum event of superposed conditional states?
To, “If someone doesn’t like that there is a rule that says a member here can point out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications, then take it up in Issues and Complaints.” does this not go to you? It would be defeating to complain given how you are responding to me like this.
And are you baiting me and acting like those ‘cool’ girls in support of the bullying?
Here is what I originally wrote. I recognize it is useless to bother being polite when the clear concern to jump on me is intentional:
Is this mature? I, not you, have pre-asserted my lack of OFFICIAL credentials, but not unofficial credibility. The only way for me to prove myself is by my actions using logic. But at every chance, you (or the two or three others since I came back) intentionally dismiss anything I’ve said by feigning that I require respecting anyone else to insult me based upon this one fact. If someone suggests a reference that I don’t look at, you TELL me that I’m against science irrationally. You are not sincere and ARE being absurdly abusive. The talking aloud to others in my presense as though I’m not here with insults regarding who I am as a person is why this popular PSA discussing bullying came out years ago:
Look, if demanding credentials are open game, then logically you should…
(1) have all people here require presenting their credentials up front, including yourself, and…
(2) to be non-hypocritical, demand that those claiming to ‘defend’ some honor in science require being non-anonymous. I have no means to even judge whether anyone is even real without some means to reference them. So how should you expect me to trust them either?
(3) if you don’t respect the non-professional as we are supposedly inferior to your authority, then also limit membership to only professionals.
Obviously I cannot stick around here. I came here speaking honestly but that gets used against me with insincere use of gaslighting behavior. I cannot claim any self authority because I am not formally annointed by your proven religious intepretation of Science and its institutions. You lack respect for logic as the underlying foundation for science and critical thinking, and have social/psychological issues that only will isolate you from those you think you are hoping to ‘convert’. You are not honest and prove how ‘political’ CFI really is for behaving like snotty cliques from some upper society private club.
The “Inquisition” was a “Center for ‘Inquiry’”, by the way. I personally asked myself why this was even named so arrogantly as though it sounds so ‘inviting’. !?? I think you guys need to redress your attitudes. You stereotype the real skeptic like me in a way that the extreme religious apologists or political manipulators of exclusive countries would think of us as. But it makes me think that this CAN be intentional and why you may BE religious people, co-opting these platforms so as to frame the athiests or free thinkers as universally arrogant snobs who are hypocritical and pretentious defenders of an intellectual fraud. And the name itself suffices to represent such obvious harm. How could you guys not notice unless you really are that stupid or are being deceptive.
And, …now I certainly do not like you guys. You do a disservice to skepticism as a whole and should be ashamed if you even able to know what you are doing so wrong. I’ve been discovering other skeptics who you guys have banned or eliminated from inclusion which helps explain how the means of concentration of stereotypes that remain in groups like this and in science in general. The extant ‘science’ sites that use similar behaviors with other added means to do harm are also ubiquitous online and suggests some political intent to control and temper the degree of skepticism, critical thinking, and science in line with your arrogant political agendas.
You guys are real frauds. Enjoy your cult while it lasts. I’d like to think that evolution would weed such dishonesty out but know that this is unlikely.
Carry on, “Bright” ones! Thanks for helping me see your light.
Yeah. Pretty hard to have a conversation with that as a premise. I can hear how you feel, but I don’t agree that it’s what CFI is about.
is that a typo?
Logic is a branch of science. Mathematical logic is a branch of Mathematics.
huh. Hadn’t heard that before.
Hmmm, I’m not sure that’s a fair statement on any level. Sure Galileo used logic as tool, but it was observation and measurements that made his case. As you yourself point out at the end of that paragraph.
Where the heck do you get that idea from?
I don’t think I agree with any of your take on science.
At its root science is about learning about our physical reality to the best of our ability, in order to gain better control and manipulation ability. All of that stuff you wrote up there seems more like frills on the jacket.
No I didn’t!
I went back to basics and presented my bottom line that “honesty matters” intent on trying to understand why you dismissed it earlier
Oh that’s precious, now I’m gaslighting you?
Well, Excuse me.
Why are you so set on seeing me as someone out to get you or something?
I’m here looking for some interesting discussion to get my own intellectual fluids going. I though trying to engage you might be interesting. Lighten up, you ain’t my enemy and I’m not your enemy.
Seems he came looking for enemies. My opinion. He acted similarly 8 years ago, so it’s probably not something that will change. I would really like to know about these “guys you have banned” he has been “discovering” that “helps explain how the means of concentration of stereotypes that remain in groups like this and in science in general”. Not sure what that even means. Anyway, anytime I’ve tracked down someone (sometimes they invite me to go see their arguments on other forums) they get the same treatment they do here, that is, either you use evidence and logic, as they are classically defined, or you don’t resolve anything.
No wonder I was getting this sense of Déjà vu reading those comments.
What is it about people? I mean I know how easy it can be, to be as big a jerk as anyone, but I don’t glory in it, and I do try to look in the mirror now and then, especially if someone makes the effort to try and connect.
But it seems like more and more people don’t even make an effort to step outside of their shells, while they’d rather focus on building walls.
What a waste.
Sometimes Scott’s language is hard to parse. I had to read this a few times to interpret it. It doesn’t help that it also doesn’t map on to my logic. Anyplace has rules. I’ve walked into churches as a tourist, ones that are historic, and sometimes there is a little ritual going on, the rules of decorum would be that I respect that. If I wanted to question those rules, I wouldn’t take up with the people sitting there doing their thing. Hopefully, there would be a place where I could go to discuss it.
That’s what CFI gives its members, a place to question the admins. On one hand, Scott is right, I don’t know what he could say that would give me reasons for wanting to change that rule or alter how I enforce it. But I’m not the rule-maker, and not the only admin. To say he is defeated, simply because I state that rule, shows some other kind of logic about rules.
Wowwwww!!! I’m 6 days behind you. This explains sOhhh much! Why Clinton lost to Trump. Why I’m able to get on with my alt. reality stepson by actually accidentally acquiring ease beyond the ease, which many here haven’t been so lucky with. Starting with young Dickie. It’s the new inequity.