So... by deleting words from my post, you can make me say things that can be interpreted differently because of the absence of context?

You sunk my battleship!

Is this a level?

I am completely lost as to how the demonstration of the effects of an action can be viewed as a threat. Nobody is making claims when it comes to the idea that ingesting certain mixtures can kill you. When a result follows from a given set of actions enough times under satisfactory conditions, it is silly to start categorizing it as a threat from "science" rather than simply observing the results and using the knowledge for your benefit. It's one thing to say you don't trust the results. But to simply disregard them as a "threat" rather than attempting to verify them on your own is just silly.

I just don't see how this comparison between scientific results and religious claims can be made any more than an orange can be compared to the number 2. They simply have nothing to do with each other.

Aaron,

All that aside, can you explain your thoughts on posting that analogy?

Aaron, am I missing something here? Your argument sounds rather rediculous I don't mean to be argumentative, I honestly don't understand what you are trying to claim.

Rize's underlying claim has to do with societal pressures.

I am pointing out that he is not actually exempt from having his belief system impacted by societal and social pressures. Even though he wants to claim a special exemption for himself, I don't think that he can actually affirmatively argue that this is the case. So far, the most he has stated is that "I am exempt because I say so." His citing of "science and evidence" fails because his conception of "science and evidence" is also socially constructed notions. Essentially, he's playing a relativism card but doesn't want to admit it. If you accept relativism, then you have a hard time establishing anything as being ultimately valid at all. Even "logic" becomes a societal construct.

This is where we started. Then we got off on the science thing.

The end goal of the analogy is to get rize to recognize that in the exact same way that he understands religion as using threats to accomplish specific behavioral ends, science behaves in the exact same manner. Science does as much social engineering as religion. (I would even suggest that it does MORE social engineering today than religion does.)

Smoking is discouraged because of the "threat" that smoking is going to cause painful lung cancer. There are consequences to smoking. Therefore, you should not smoke.

Excessive emissions of greenhouse gasses is discouraged because of the "threat" of completely screwing up the planet. There are consequences to the release of specific chemicals into the atmosphere. Therefore, you should be more aware of the products you use so that this behavior is minimized.

In these cases, it's not as if "science" will "punish" you if you engage in these behaviors. If you "reject" the science of smoking, it's not as if the lung cancer is somehow science's fault. They are merely consequences of the behavior.

The religious "threats" are the same way. If you reject God's grace, then there are specific consequences (and they're not good). Therefore, you should accept God's grace. If you reject God's grace, and thereby go to hell, it's not as if religion is to blame.

I suppose you can "blame God" in the same sense that you can "blame smoking", but that doesn't change the causal nature of the outcome with the decisions that are made.

Of course everyone is going to be impacted by societal and social pressures. No one is arguing that your environment won't have some effect on how you formulate your opinions. But rize wasn't claiming that.

All he is saying is that he chooses to test things and form his own conclusion rather than believing something that he can't verify simply because it comes with an equally unverifiable threat attached.

Can you elaborate on this? My understanding of science and evidence is that they are, by definition, not socially constructed, but rather independent verifications of consistent results regardless of the intentions or hopes of the observer.

I think you are confusing science with social engineering. Science is a method of observation. What people choose to do with those observations has no weight on the original method of observation itself. Science doesn't discourage smoking, it is simply the method used to determine that smoking can in fact cause health problems that can lead to a premature death. The method itself does not threaten you. If someone uses that information to threaten you, it is not science doing the threatening.

The same is true with the global warming debate. It is not science that attempts to use various observations and studies to engineer certain social reactions.

For a second there I almost thought we were on the same page. What you are missing about rize's point though is that religion attempts to convince you to believe unverifiable claims using threats of unverifiable punishment.

Science on the other hand is simply an observation with no intention.

He's arguing for a personal exemption. I don't know how you can square up that claim with yours.

I want to hang out here on "unverifiable" because this is a very clear deviation from rize's original position.

But your notion of "verifiability" is a social construct. What it takes to "prove" something to you is a function of the society that you are in. A "proof" using today's understanding may not convince someone in another time or another place.

There is no "standard" interpretation of data. You can "verify data" by reproducing it (if it falls within certain "socially accepted" levels of tolerance), but one must still interpret the meaning of the data, and this is done by people who have socially constructed understandings of the types of relationships between the variables involved.

I don't think I'm confused at all.

The application of science in social engineering is identical in form to the application of religion in social engineering.

Back to "unverifiable" again. I've addressed this above.

That may be true to some extent, but not completely. If I administer 200mg doses of potassium cyanide to 50 patients and sugar pills to 50 other patients, is there any debate as to the effects of cyanide on human patients when all 50 of the cyanide recipients die within minutes? Do social constructs have any bearing on the interpretation of this observation?

Can the same be said for any religious claims? There is no test that I could perform that could conclusively verify to me the validity of any religious threats. They are just as valid as the claims of any doomsday cultist. What experiments can I perform to enable me to believe in your hell or the pending apocalypse warned of by the cultist?

Sure social constructs can have some effect on the interpretation of scientific observations and the application of them to theories about our universe, but I can always perform my own experiments and use my own knowledge to draw my own conclusions on any scientific claims.

What can I do when it comes to religious claims other than choose to believe blindly or ignore it as I do any claims which I cannot personally verify?

That is true, but that is not what we are discussing. The debate was surrounding the fact that certain religions use threats of punishment as part of their argument for belief and your position that science uses similar tactics. I still cannot see how your position is anything but ridiculous. Science is a method of observation of the world that we are able to experience with our bodies, and it is completely impartial to whether you believe in it or not. The fact that people can misuse scientific findings is completely irrelevant.

Science asks you to look around yourself and describe what you see. Religion tells you what is there and asks you to ignore the fact that there is no way for you to know if it is true until you die, and threatens you with severe punishment if you choose to ignore it's claims. How such an empty threat can ever be compared to a simple scientific observation of something you are able to experience here and now, is still beyond me.

The simple fact is that scientific discoveries and theories must always stand up to constant scrutiny by anybody willing to put the effort in, while religion is simply stories and rules passed down from people with less knowledge and understanding of our world with no room for scrutiny or improvement because it isn't even based in a reality that we can experience.

Social constructs have a bearing on the experiment itself. For example, you can't actually run this experiment. But setting aside the reality of the thought experiment, you can certainly conclude the correlation you desire between cyanide and death, but society will strongly influence how you understand and interpret that death.

There is no test of the type that you have constructed. But of course, you've constructed a scientific test, and in a very real way presume your conclusion in doing so. Science measures a certain subset of the universe and has nothing to say about that which lies outside that subset. So the simple question remains: What is outside the subset of knowledge for which scientific methodology is applicable? And no, you can't answer this question using some sort of scientific methodology. You're going to have to dig around a bit inside your own head to find out whether you're equipped to answer this question. Many people actively choose to ignore such a question. This is fine. But their decisions will have consequences, just like every other decision. And if you ask me to prove to you using some sort of scientific methodology that there will be consequences, you're merely demonstrating how narrow your perspective is.

Sure, but you're once again limiting your span of knowable statements by resorting to a purely scientific methodology. Unless you're saying that you will allow yourself "your own experiments" which need not conform to scientific methodology, in which case you'll have to explain why you think your personal methodology exceeds scientific methodology for scientific claims (but I doubt that's what you mean).

There are things that you can personally verify. They're just not subject to scientific methodology. There are true statements which science cannot verify.

Grunching but I'm surprised they are less likely to accept ESP when scientists are open to the possibility with the population beliefs remaining the same. That's very weird.

Saying that the test can't actually be run is a cop out. Replace it with any test that you would be comfortable running that would show a result that we can observe and it would be the same thing.

In what way? Would there be any debate after such a test that cyanide is an extremely dangerous substance for human beings and should be avoided at all costs?

Ahh, and so we finally arrive at the crux of our issue. Why should I concern myself with tales of existences that I cannot experience? Which of these theoretical realities should I choose to believe in and what method for vetting them should I use?

What reason do I have to widen my perspective beyond that which I can experience? If I can't experience it, it is essentially non-existent for me.

I have searched all my life for these things and have only been led on wild goose-chases thus far. If you have some secret method which I have yet had the opportunity to experience, please do share, for it is true, it would be more important than anything else in my limited existence.

Wants, really enjoying your posts itt. Careful though...before you know it you'll be 50 more posts in and defining what it is to "know" something.

Ty, sir. To be honest, if we don't get there eventually, it isn't an RGT worthy thread

Science does not conclude this at all. This is a social construct.

Edit: Even defining it as "dangerous" has part of the social construct written into it. Science alone should only conclude that this substance probably causes people to die.

Why should I trust scientists when they say smoking is bad for me? I know plenty of people who have smoked their whole lives and did not get cancer. I'm not sick right now. The pleasure I get from smoking exceeds the pain that I might suffer if I happen to get cancer. You don't know the future...

It's not that you "can't" experience it. It's that you have not yet experienced it, and perhaps this is something that you ultimately will not want to have experienced.

One does not need to be hit by a car to experience it so that they understand that getting hit by a car is a bad thing.

I wouldn't call it a "secret" method, but it starts by first examining yourself down to your core experience of life. Non-religious people often view religion as a set of rituals and routines. This is an unfortunate mischaracterization. A good religion provides a complete worldview which adequately answers questions about the self. Although many people live a philosophically shallow existence, those who deeply pursue the question of "why" end up stumbling along the types of questions that lead one to consider the role of religion in people's lives. As long as you remain focused on "verifiability" in the scientific sense (which is where you started this conversation), you will find it very hard to arrive at a different type of destination.

(Note: "Why" is not "how." Science speaks of mechanisms -- the "how" -- and you have to search elsewhere for the reasons and purposes -- the why.)

For an excellent example of a question that science cannot answer:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...use-lc-789993/

Some say the question itself is irrelevant because we can't know one way or the other. Others view that this question has philosophical implications (the nature of "responsibility" and the relationship of the "self" with the rest of the universe). But these are things that you won't get at by taking measurements.

Edit: Yet, there is a sense in which I can "verify" my free will (to the extent that this can be "verified") since I see myself making decisions, and I have the experience of responsibility, and the intuitive moral understanding of those decisions. This doesn't mean that it's an airtight argument -- you can call the whole thing an illusion. But that would be an unsatisfying answer to a lot of my life's most pertinent experiences.

im pretty sure science can tell us "why" for a lot of things...

Aaron, what are your reasons for believing statements about the universe can be known without the scientific method? Also, can you give some examples of true statements which science cannot verify? In such situations what do you use in place of evidence to categorise statements as true or false?

Cheers

That may be true, but it is a construct arrived at through scientific observation, which makes it more likely to be helpful in dealing with the world around you. If you do not trust it, verify it yourself. I have tried to do the same with many religious claims and the results have led to me losing faith in their methods for determining truth about our world for I am clearly not able to experience the reality that they preach.

If I make up things about the world that you cannot experience yourself, on what grounds would you choose to place faith in my claims?

We don't know the future for certain but we can reasonably extrapolate from previous occurrences what results might occur from certain actions. The whole point is that you don't need to trust scientists. Science enables you to verify their claims for yourself. Blind faith in science is not needed, nor is it welcome.

I am not sure about the not wanting part, but I don't see how the fact that I have yet to experience something means that I should place any faith in the possibility that I could experience it. There is literally an infinite realm of experiences that I could come across in my lifetime, but with literally zero evidence or indication that I will in fact experience something, why should I waste my time planning for it?

Why should I prepare for an afterlife any more than I should prepare for getting abducted by aliens?

The difference is that there is evidence available to me that getting hit by a car is something I should actively plan on avoiding. There is enough satisfactory evidence for me to be willing to put effort into that. I cannot say the same for any religious claims that I have come across.

Why should I want anything more than what is available to me in the physical realm, here and now? Why are these questions about the self important for me to live a meaningful and enjoyable life? Why should I waste any time on chasing something which, according to all knowledge so far available to me, is a complete hoax? What is this question of "why"? Why what? Why should I care?

This is probably my biggest question for anyone with spiritual beliefs.

The fact that there is information which the scientific method cannot *IN PRINCIPLE* know and that there are examples of such things. (See below)

Any mathematical truth is not verifiable via the scientific method. Also, philosophical contradictions cannot be ascertained using the scientific method.

Logic/reason and congruence with basic human experience.

Is that actually true? Don't mathematical truths and philosophical contradictions have to be congruent with the reality available to us? If they are in contradiction with reality, aren't they considered to be inaccurate, or at least not completely understood yet?

How does that differ from the scientific method? Sounds exactly like what I try to do

Also how does your method enable you to believe in any specific religious claims. What logic, reason, and human experience do you have to verify these claims?

Explain the scientific observation which leads to the conclusion that "death should be avoided at all costs" (I believe this to be a fair rendering of the two statements given: cyanide is a dangerous substance (because it will kill you) and therefore cyanide should be avoided at all costs.)

One needs to look at the information that surrounds the information that you gave me. When someone tells you something, there is no a priori reason for you to automatically accept the information that is give. Now, you can choose to a priori reject all the information given to you, but that's just as useless (because the truth is that most of the information we get is received from others, not discovered on our own). There's always a balance of what you can ascertain on your own and what you have to accept as knowledge presented to you.

You seem to be lacking this critical component in your understanding of what science is.

This is false. There are plenty of claims that I cannot actually verify for myself. If science does a study involving a few hundred people, this is not something that I can actually replicate on my own. This line of reasoning is often used regarding science, but it's a hypothetical science and not what science actually does. Sure, in theory I can do a survey of a few hundred people and get some result which may or may not correspond to the result of the previous observations, but due to the reality of the situation (something that you wanted to avoid in the first post) dictates that this is not actually possible.

As with any other decision, we make decisions and deal with it. Some people don't visit the doctor regularly, and many diseases which could have been caught earlier (when they are simpler to treat) aren't caught. That's just how life goes.

No reason, if you don't think there's an afterlife. Also, you would have to describe some sort of preparation for being abducted by aliens and seek some sort of reasoning as to why that particular preparation would be useful. I think it would be helpful to again consider the doctor analogy above.

That's fine. Then don't worry about it. There are plenty of things that some people concern themselves about that I don't. Some people worry about brain cancer because of cell phone use and therefore always use an earpiece. I don't. I don't think the evidence is satisfactory. But at issue is that whether the evidence satisfies me or not will not impact the consequences of my actions.

Self-understanding is a component of a "meaningful" life, isn't it? And if self-understanding leads one to consider religious perspectives, then that's what it will take to have a "meaningful" life. Perhaps you, personally, find meaning through non-religious perspectives. That's fine. But again, your actions have consequences whether you believe in those consequences or not.

One of the fundamental issues that you've been bringing forth is that somehow ignorance of information should be treated as a virtue. It's almost a matter of "what you don't know can't hurt you." I view that as an unfortunate perspective to take. See again the doctor analogy.

Very simply, once you know what you mean by "actually true" you should understand that it's not a question that can be approached by scientific methodology question.

Sometimes the reality available to us is not sufficient to determine the whether a particular axiom is "congruent" with the reality available to us. See the free will thread.

There are mathematical truths that seem to have no resemblance to reality. The Riemann Hypothesis (and its generalizations) are examples. There's no scientific experiment which can conclude the truth of the Riemann Hypothesis.

Maybe you should define what you mean by the scientific method. You should find that your definition *USES* logic and reason, but it is not itself logic and reason.

Furthermore, it's not at all obvious not all human experiences can be measured using scientific methodology unless you bring that in as one your base assumptions about the nature of the human experience.

There are a number of places to start. Morality is a common one (Why do we feel that we have a moral responsibility? If we have a moral responsibility, to whom are we actually responsible?). Other places to consider are the nature of intelligence (How does intelligence arise from non-intelligence? What is the nature of intelligence? If intelligence does arise from non-intelligence, what are the implications about the intelligence that we have?). Then there are plenty of reflective questions to consider (Who am I? What am I doing? What is this life all about?).

Again, you're hung up on "verification" in a scientific methodological sense. If you hang your hat on that, then many of these questions become meaningless. And if you choose to do that, again, it's a decision you make for yourself. And there are consequences to those decisions.

What makes you think other methods CAN/DO know the answer to these questions?

I agree with Wants here, is this not the scientific method?

Rather than you having 2 conversations at once, I'll just read - If I have questions I'll ask em later on