Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > No reason for a rift between science and religion?

Pages: (37) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,22:04    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 28 2007,21:52) Well, that plus the point I've tried to make before - defining the terms in an unclear question is a necessary first step toward answering it. Ergo, objecting to a request for definitions of terms just does not make sense. But that is precisely the problem:  when it comes to subjective questions, there IS NO definition. Or, more correctly, there are BILLIONS of definitions -- one for every person alive -- and there simply is no way to logically, scientifically or rationally determine whose definition is the "correct" one.  Asking for a single precise definition of terms, is asking for something that just doesn't exist. And that is precisely why science cannot even BEGIN to answer these questions.  There is simply no way to objectively define the terms -- other than arbitrarily picking one definition (ANY one --it doesn't matter which) and declaring "that's it -- that's the one we're using". Which doesn't actually answer the question. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,23:17    Lenny, Re "But that is precisely the problem:" It looks to me like the real problem seems to be that you're saying that like somebody's disagreeing with you, when your point here isn't what Louis is disagreeing with, as far as I can tell. I think what Louis is saying is that the answers from a group of people, once obtained, can be analyzed statistically, and maybe that a persons answer could be detected by using an instrument to measure the person's reaction to something. As far as I can tell, he isn't saying that science can decide the answer for a given person, which is what it looks like what you appear to think he's saying. Regarding asking somebody on the street "are blondes cuter than brunettes?" - if you ask a specific person that question, then you've provided the context that Louis keeps saying is needed. Which makes me wonder why you keep objecting to his suggestion that context (i.e., who is being asked) is needed for that kind of question? For that particular question, the term that typically needs defining is simply the "to whom" part of the question - without that the question is meaningless (Or at least unanswerable as is), as everybody who's commented here (excepting perhaps Skeptic) appears to agree. Henry

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,01:32    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 28 2007,20:14)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 28 2007,20:07) Lenny unless I can be convinced why not, ?I do suspect that asking about 'Capital B-Beauty' or 'are blondes hotter than brunettes' is like asking 'what color is a five sided square'. after all, as louis has repeatedly and verbose-ly pointed out, that question is rather indistinguishable from nonsense without the subjective qualifiers. ? do you not agree? No, I do not agree. And the reason is simple --- if you go out on the street, stop five or six random people, and ask them: ?(1) what color is a five-sided square?, and then (2) are blondes cuter than brunettes?, you will very quickly discover something interesting. Everyone will answer the second question. Nobody will answer the first. Why? One question has meaning to people. One doesn't. It won't take long to discover which is which. Go try it. We have a semantic tangle. I recommend to anyone who has skimmed the longer posts here that they read Reciprocating Bill's last few posts with some care. Clarity was needed, and Bill delivered. My own contribution to an unravelling of the particular knot Lenny worries at here is the concept of speech acts. Language is a part of human behavior, more of a conduit through which we mediate interpersonal affairs than a channel dedicated to noise-free information transfer. A great deal of the time, our speech acts, that is, discrete utterances, do not "say" the literal meaning of what we "said." Classic examples are like "Do you have the time?" The speaker is not interested, particularly, in a yes or no answer, which, taken literally, the question requires. The speaker wants to know the time. This is what Searle and others have called indirect speech acts. The concept can be applied to questions like Lenny's though, and doing so reveals that they are just not the same kind of speech acts as questions about matters of easily verified facts and results of measurements. The question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" in ordinary discourse is really a request: "[Tell me your opinion:] are blondes hotter than brunettes?" So, while it takes the identical grammatical form as questions like "Are bricks heavier than feathers?" it is not a speech act requesting an assertion of fact, but an opinion. That is why it will generate a reply from the man in the street, and Louis's nonsense question will not. If you asked the same random person, "Are blondes hotter than brunettes, always, for everyone?" you'd get the same blank stares as you would if you babbled. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,03:56    Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 29 2007,00:07) Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2007,15:27) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 28 2007,21:14) OK then, let's see if science can answer this one: ?   Quote What color is a five-sided square? I'd like to see you weasel out of this one with all them'ar big words, Louis. No worries! The colour of a five sided square is Bognor Regis. Or to be precise Bognor Regis point six three banana four quantum Sigmund BunkyBunkyJigJig. Um, let me interrupt the repartee for a moment to clarify something: Is it your view that the questions "is abortion wrong?", "are brunettes cuter than blondes?" or "is it wrong to keep a wallet full of money that I find on the sidealk" are "meaningless" -- that is, they are no different, in principle, from questions like "what color is a five-sided square?" Really and truly? Lenny, You of course already know precisely what I think having carefully read what I have written. And it isn't my emotions that are leading me to tell you you have quotemined me, it is the facts, the nice black and white written down facts of the messages on this message board. Hence why I have little interest in discussing this with you UNTIL you can admit you were wrong. You quote mined me and have been attacking a strawman ever since. Why should I waste further time retyping an explanation of something I have already explained several times exceedingly clearly? Oh and yes, both "questions" are meaningless as they stand because they are incoherent. They are incoherent for different reasons, but why bother to explain this to you? You clearly a) haven't read what I have written (because I've explained this a few times now)and b) the bits you have read you are quote mining in order to attack a strawman. So like I said, if you want to progress the discussion, restate my arguments to my satisfaction and I'll do the same for yours. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,04:00    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 28 2007,23:27) Louis, you're dealing in word games and evasion. ?Exceedingly long word games at that. ?Why don't you just answer a question? ?Is there something so threatening in that request? You guys are also dancing around the point. ?If someone views a sunrise and finds it beautiful, why is to so and what does that mean to them? ?Imagine if there was no one else in the world and the individual viewed that same sunrise, would it still be beautiful? ?Now, imagine that the individual has never seen a sunrise but still imagines one to be beautiful, is it still beautiful? ?Where does the concept of beauty reside? Skeptic, No, I'm not dancing around, I've already ANSWERED the question. I spent a good portion of my day waiting for the plumber answering it. I spent a reasonable amount of time answering it. The fact that you have either not read it, or if you have read it not understood it really isn't my problem. The fact that as CJ (and others) also note when any question is answered you resort to goalpost shifting (as has been amply demonstrated) makes this conversation (such as it is) utterly futile. You could of course go back, read what I've written and try very hard to understand it and then restate it to my satisfaction. That might progress things. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,04:29    Lenny, Shit boy you DO love your strawmen! I didn't say those questions were meaningless I said those questions were meaningless in the absence of context. Those last few words are kind of significant, they just ever so slightly alter the meaning of the whole sentence. Also, whilst the title of the thread has the word "science" in it, you'll notice (because you've read everything right?) that in the FIRST post I pointed out that major basis for the rift between science and religion as being the epistemological differences between faith and reason. I made it somewhat clear to anyone with a reading age of oooooh around five I'd say. Of course you'd know this if you'd read it, or if you'd bothered to do anything other than quote mine my arguments for straw men. Still playing the smug cunt? Still not ready to admit that you have utterly failed to understand or deal with the arguments I've actually made? (As opposed to your strawmen of course) I just wonder what MASSIVE arrogance you must possess to utterly ignore someone who has REAPEATEDLY told you that you have misunderstood their argument and REPEATEDLY restated it for you and then to continue with the SAME misunderstanding as if it were real. You actually have staggered me on that front. You seem to be as borish and stupid as the fundamentalists you dislike because you are parroting EXACTLY their methods of discussion. I notice you are ALSO ignoring the points I made earlier about the evolutionary approach to axiom generating in subjective matters (indeed ANY matter, because all thing proceed from axioms) AND the statistical points I've made. I notice that in doing this all you have done is restate your original claims. Just like Skeptic has done. Just like AFDave would etc etc etc. If you want to be distinguishable from morons, don't argue like them. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,04:39    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 29 2007,07:32) We have a semantic tangle. I recommend to anyone who has skimmed the longer posts here that they read Reciprocating Bill's last few posts with some care. Clarity was needed, and Bill delivered. First, thanks for your help, I made the point about definitions and use of language a while ago but it has been ignored. I'm not singling you out CJ, someone else (Bill I think, I may be wrong) upthread said this was a semantic wrangle, and I don't agree that it is. Second, long though some of my posts may have been they have been abundantly clear to anyone willing to read them. Which I don't agree that Lenny has done Third, I don't agree that I am part of any semantic tangle or wrangle. I have been exceedingly clear about why I think the questions Lenny and Skeptic are posing are answerable by reason and under what circumstances. I've also been exceedingly clear about what, when they shift definitions to make a question unanswerable, or when they rely on commonly used definitions for terms without stating that up front, renders the questions unanswerable. I can't help it if people want to quote mine and attack straw men. Fourth, Lenny and I disagree on one issue: he thinks that an undefined, context free, collection of words about a context dependant property constitutes a question, I don't. I've pointed this out both verbosely and succinctly a few different ways and it has yet to get through. Needless to say, I am less than convinced, given the demonstrable quote mining and attacking of strawmen, that my communication skills (or lack thereof) are to blame. Louis -------------- Bye.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,06:41    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,05:39) I'm not singling you out CJ, someone else (Bill I think, I may be wrong) upthread said this was a semantic wrangle, and I don't agree that it is. Louis - I jumped in somewhat midstream. FWIW, upon returning to the start and reading (portions of) your earlier posts I see that you've most often been clear about the distinction between "reason" and "science/scientific method." I'm not sure that characterizing science as simply a more skillfully applied form of reason fully captures the distinction, however, as science has contributed unique means of empirical feedback and extended communities capable of "distributed cognition" and self-correction that go far beyond reasoning alone - as well you know. R. Bill -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,08:19    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,12:41) Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,05:39) I'm not singling you out CJ, someone else (Bill I think, I may be wrong) upthread said this was a semantic wrangle, and I don't agree that it is. Louis - I jumped in somewhat midstream. FWIW, upon returning to the start and reading (portions of) your earlier posts I see that you've most often been clear about the distinction between "reason" and "science/scientific method." I'm not sure that characterizing science as simply a more skillfully applied form of reason fully captures the distinction, however, as science has contributed unique means of empirical feedback and extended communities capable of "distributed cognition" and self-correction that go far beyond reasoning alone - as well you know. R. Bill Hi Bill, Actually, I'd agree with your comment completely, and  I'm guilty of oversimplifying the reason/science relationship. My point about the reason/science relationship was limited to the epistemological basis of science. I'm not sure how relevant the mechanistic nuances of science are relevant to the discussion however, but I'm willing to learn! Skeptic's initial claim was that there is no valid reason for a rift between science and religion, my starting comment on this was that at the very core of these broad human enterprises there are very different epistemological methods (or claims for epistemological validity) and that this leads to a very real and very genuine rift. As a general rule I have to say that I am less than enamoured by the dichotomies that people erect between fields of study. It's a Greek legacy, blame those old dudes! The mechanistic, technical aspects of say physics and history (for example) are very different but their underpinnings by reason (etc) are identical. At least partly where this thread has gone awry is where the "unanswerable" "questions" arise (I take issue with BOTH of those words for separate reasons). First we have the unsupported (unsupportable) claim that methods can answer "unanswerable" questions and second we have the unsupported (unsupportable) claim that unanswerable "questions" are in fact questions. Perhaps that's my fault for emphasising the epistemological elements of the discussion, but that is where the root of the rift between science and religion lies. Louis -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,08:46    Louis, who's context?

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:06    think i figgered it out. I don't assume that every question may be answered and that this answer is 'out there' and floating around like lenny seems to be saying, man, in some ontological void until some particular bastard like Louis insists that it be squeezed into some contingent context or the other.   lenny, if you aren't saying that, then may i characterize you as saying that 'NOT every question may be answered'. louis it is true that you are saying these are questions that don't have answers? if we agree that not every question may be answered (of course i am skipping over uninteresting quibbles about definitions of truth etc) then this gets simpler.   Lenny i don't see how you can argue that 'science can't answer these questions' because of their context-free ubersubjective nature, and also claim that 'these are meaningful questions'.  i find that asking Joe Schmo on the street is not only a red herring but also damages your argument because someone pointed out, this implies   Quote [In Your Opinion] Are Live Women Hotter Than Dead Women? Ed Abbey said something relevant here (i forget what the object was but it works for whatever), when asked by a visitor 'What is that?', Abbey replied "Ahh, what it is no man knows, but some call it a raven". And that is the same essentialist obfuscating that you are doing with insisting that 'questions have answers that beyond science' and on the other hand 'those questions have answers'.  it's just an ontological silly buggers game, you are stuck with this conundrum because you have assumed an essential characteristic and therefore must claim that it is outside of science, and define science accordingly. But I could be wrong.  Do all questions have answers? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:07    p.s. that was all an excuse to say ontological silly buggers.  i've been laughing my ass off at that, rhetorically. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:11    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 29 2007,14:46) Louis, who's context? Depends on which context you are asking about. Which one are you asking about? Oh and incidentally, you'd know my answer to this question if you'd bothered to read what I'd written before on this thread. I've explained it about 3 or 4 times now. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:18    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2007,15:06) louis it is true that you are saying these are questions that don't have answers? All questions have answers by definition*. Not all things that appear to be qustions or are framed as questions are, in fact, questions. Some of the things that appear to be questions are incoherent and thus cannot, by definition, be questions. Louis *Whether they have answers YET is a different matter, as is whether you, I, or anyone else will ever know the answers and irrelevant to the topic at hand. -------------- Bye.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:18    Quote We have a semantic tangle No we have a semantic triangle AKA Semiotic triangle not be confused with ?a Map Of Tassie -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:20    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2007,15:07) p.s. that was all an excuse to say ontological silly buggers. ?i've been laughing my ass off at that, rhetorically. I have been wondering when people will get to onology for a while. The sort of (well refuted) arguments that Skeptic is attempting to make (very badly) are geared towards the ontological argument for the existence of god. Enjoy the laugh. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:21    Quote (k.e @ Aug. 29 2007,15:18) Quote We have a semantic tangle No we have a semantic triangle AKA Semiotic triangle not be confused with ?a Map Of Tassie I have also been wondering when someone was going to make a joke about cloppers. Louis -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:02    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,09:18) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 29 2007,15:06) louis it is true that you are saying these are questions that don't have answers? All questions have answers by definition*. Not all things that appear to be qustions or are framed as questions are, in fact, questions. Some of the things that appear to be questions are incoherent and thus cannot, by definition, be questions. Louis *Whether they have answers YET is a different matter, as is whether you, I, or anyone else will ever know the answers and irrelevant to the topic at hand. Context determines whether or not a question is indeed a question?  I'm not sure if this is simply stupid or incredibly arrogant. Take this scenario.  I ask you Why you love your wife.  Who gets to decide the context?  You tell me that you love your wife because God linked your souls for eternity or something equally irrational.  I say, I'm sorry, that's not correct.  Population X has determined that love is defined by A, B, and C and your reason is not on the list.  Please go back and try again or I can only conclude that you do not love your wife, at least not according to my context which is the only way this question is meaningful to me.  Who gets to decide which questions are meaningful?  How about everyone!  You should really go back and read some of what you've written.  And before you ask, I have no interest in restating your opinion to your satisfaction.  This is nothing more than a diversion and I have no intention in arguing in the schoolyard with a three year old.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:06    A search for 'cloppers', which seems to be a plural for a singularity, reveals only this. Mad and Bad: Lewis, Psychosis and the Culture of Psychiatry -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:13    Quote I ask you Why you love your wife.   After I help you up off of the floor, I respond 'That's why'. and to you, that answer is just as valid as your population statistics.  any answer would be.  and that is why it is a stupid question that doesn't have an answer.  it is irrelevant that you can ask 8 out of 10 dentists or what have you and they will give you an answer instead of saying 'What the fuck are you talking about'.  surprise, skeptic, people make shit up when they are asked softball stupid pseudo-questions.  you have proven that over and over again.  tell us more about duality. you forgot that it would be "[In My Opinion], I Love My Wife Because" before we took to rasslin' over it.   Or do you presume that there is an objective answer, floating around out there in the ether, to the question?  Must I pray to know the real answer?  How can you tell? you can't, because it is nonsense dressed up in drag. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:21    But doesn't that question mean something to you?  Obviously it does or you wouldn't have decked me.  Is it really a stupid question?  How much more significant in the course of your day is that answer to that question than the speed of light or some other physical quantity?

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:30    of course you miss the point, again.  mighta hit you harder than i meant (of course, it could have been because you were really drunk and took a swing at me). the point was namely that To You, any answer is as good as any other answer to that question.   that would be my position as well except that i don't think it is a meaningful question.  just a string of words soliciting my opinion. isn't it just amazing that people add meaning to meaningless things?  how about a three tier waterfall symbolizing the trinity?  or that time when the phone rang right when i was thinking about it ringing?  or assigning some ontological priority to sloppy propositions? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:49    Another Stroke Against Dualism -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:53    Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 29 2007,16:02) Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,09:18) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 29 2007,15:06) louis it is true that you are saying these are questions that don't have answers? All questions have answers by definition*. Not all things that appear to be qustions or are framed as questions are, in fact, questions. Some of the things that appear to be questions are incoherent and thus cannot, by definition, be questions. Louis *Whether they have answers YET is a different matter, as is whether you, I, or anyone else will ever know the answers and irrelevant to the topic at hand. Context determines whether or not a question is indeed a question? ?I'm not sure if this is simply stupid or incredibly arrogant. Take this scenario. ?I ask you Why you love your wife. ?Who gets to decide the context? ?You tell me that you love your wife because God linked your souls for eternity or something equally irrational. ?I say, I'm sorry, that's not correct. ?Population X has determined that love is defined by A, B, and C and your reason is not on the list. ?Please go back and try again or I can only conclude that you do not love your wife, at least not according to my context which is the only way this question is meaningful to me. ?Who gets to decide which questions are meaningful? ?How about everyone! ?You should really go back and read some of what you've written. ?And before you ask, I have no interest in restating your opinion to your satisfaction. ?This is nothing more than a diversion and I have no intention in arguing in the schoolyard with a three year old. Skeptic, I have already answered the "do I love my wife" question AND the issue of context. You can read these answers in this very thread. Don't want to restate my arguments to my satisfaction? Bullshit! Don't want to read them more like! You can keep pissing about Skeptic, but you just make yourself look like a fucking idiot. It's actually quite funny. I have a vague sense that when I accuse you of arguing poorly in manner X you repeat the exact accusation (baselessly I might add) a few posts later as if this WERE some schoolyard tauntfest. I might go back and see if my vague sense is correct. Of course it's far more likely I won't waste my time. Like I asked above, which use of "context" were you referring to? I've used it in at least two ways and defined each use quite carefully. Which one do you mean? Incidentally, to answer this question, and to get e to answer your question, you will have to actually read and understand my arguments. I have complete confidence that you lack both the will and the ability to do this. Keep up the terrible work. Louis -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,12:35    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2007,10:30) of course you miss the point, again. ?mighta hit you harder than i meant (of course, it could have been because you were really drunk and took a swing at me). the point was namely that To You, any answer is as good as any other answer to that question. ? that would be my position as well except that i don't think it is a meaningful question. ?just a string of words soliciting my opinion. isn't it just amazing that people add meaning to meaningless things? ?how about a three tier waterfall symbolizing the trinity? ?or that time when the phone rang right when i was thinking about it ringing? ?or assigning some ontological priority to sloppy propositions? I'm going to have to step back here and say that I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. To me, my answer is not just as good as any other.  Are you saying that to you my answer is just as good as any other? adding meaning to a meaningless thing?  love is meaningless and we attach fake meaning to it?  I'm really not sure I'm getting you here...my ears are still ringing.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:40    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 28 2007,23:17) I think what Louis is saying is that the answers from a group of people, once obtained, can be analyzed statistically, and maybe that a persons answer could be detected by using an instrument to measure the person's reaction to something. Which is all well and fine --- except that it doesn't . . . ya know . . . .answer the question. :) Which is of course my whole point.  Science (or logic, or reason, or kohlinar) simply can't answer the question.  All it can do is examine OTHER PEOPLE'S answers-- with no clue at all which answer is right. Which is why science (or reason, or logic, or kohlinar) is not universally applicable. Which is why science and religion need not inherently conflict with each other. Which is all I've been saying all along.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:42    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 29 2007,01:32) The question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" in ordinary discourse is really a request: "[Tell me your opinion:] are blondes hotter than brunettes?" So, while it takes the identical grammatical form as questions like "Are bricks heavier than feathers?" it is not a speech act requesting an assertion of fact, but an opinion. That is why it will generate a reply from the man in the street, and Louis's nonsense question will not. If you asked the same random person, "Are blondes hotter than brunettes, always, for everyone?" you'd get the same blank stares as you would if you babbled. Ding ding ding ding !!!!!!!!!! Exactly right. Which is exactly why science can't answer such questions. Which demonstrates why sciene is not universally applicable. Which indicates why sciecne and religion need not inherently conflict wiht each other. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:42    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,03:56) Is it your view that the questions "is abortion wrong?", "are brunettes cuter than blondes?" or "is it wrong to keep a wallet full of money that I find on the sidealk" are "meaningless" -- that is, they are no different, in principle, from questions like "what color is a five-sided square?" Really and truly?[/quote] Lenny, You of course already know precisely what I think having carefully read what I have written. Humor me.  Tell me again. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:44    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,04:29) I didn't say those questions were meaningless I said those questions were meaningless in the absence of context. Those last few words are kind of significant, they just ever so slightly alter the meaning of the whole sentence. That's great. So how can "logic" or "science" or "reason" answer those questions. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:45    Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,04:29) Also, whilst the title of the thread has the word "science" in it, you'll notice (because you've read everything right?) that in the FIRST post I pointed out that major basis for the rift between science and religion as being the epistemological differences between faith and reason. I made it somewhat clear to anyone with a reading age of oooooh around five I'd say. You're uh, bitching at the wrong person here, Louis.  I think Reciprocating Bill made the point you are bitching about.  So you'd best bitch at him instead of at me. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Pages: (37) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard