I would never argue that rationality, or reason, isn't useful. It's clearly adapted for our survival. I'm saying rationality isn't 'truth'-ful. When it comes to metaphysical claims, or deeper levels of causality, rationality alone is no longer effective.

If someone gets punched in the face, the rational mind has no problem accurately assessing why that person's face hurts. But, if that person wakes up one morning in severe depression and wants to end his life, the rational mind will come up with any number of possible theories or factors of causation, and they will all be either wrong or grossly incomplete. The rational mind cannot accurately understand or solve issues of suffering/evil, which is THE problem.

All thoughts and beliefs are rational. Someone might see a belief as irrational, but only because that person is not gripped by it. If they were, then they would consider the very same belief rational. The same thoughts or beliefs cannot be both rational and irrational, so it's more useful to think of all thoughts and beliefs as rational. Any belief can be rationalized if we are gripped by it. It is incorrect to think that we hold beliefs. Beliefs hold us, which is why we cannot accurately assess them within the domain or rationality.

Man thinks, feels and wills ; which do you choose to give you insight into the world ? Is there another ?

Reason brings us to truth even when that truth is found to be replaced by another in the progress of time. This only means that Man is a limited being who progresses within time, as change works its path.

If somehow you refuse to say "reason" and use "rational" then carry on for only through thoughts and thinking, in complete clarity, can you, I, or behind the outhouse come to an agreement.

The best to you. finis.

We can divide reality into three categories: the explored known, the unexplored known, and the unknown. Reason only brings us to, or operates in, the first two categories, but new (and truthful) intelligence can only be found in the third category. We can tell the difference between the 2nd and 3rd categories in practice by how much chaos, pain, and resistance there is as we aim at and move toward it.

Regarding your question of how I gain insight into the world: We can do that by going into the unknown, into the chaotic. It's an internal/psychological process. As we make the unknown known about ourselves internally, we then make the unknown known about the world. This is what Jesus and Krishna did and taught, and what the Buddha was scratching the surface of.

People think (mostly unconsciously) that they are making progress toward truth through the intellect but they are stuck in the category of the unexplored known. They are simply clarifying, articulating, and bringing to conscious awareness elements of the known. That is what the intellect actually does. It operates within a level of causality and insight that is incomplete for what we desire. If we attempt to extend beyond this boundary where the intelligence that we desire exists, the intellect will resist by first attempting to convince us that this place doesn't exist and if that doesn't work, by then giving reason after reason of why we should no longer proceed.

The ultimate arbitrator on this topic is pain/suffering. It is the reality check on whatever presumed solution the rational mind has given us. It is very difficult to take on the burden of voluntarily holding onto the pained mindset that realizes the emptiness of life while simultaneously holding the contradictory faithful/optimistic mindset, but that is what is required to be capable of seeing the limitation of the intellect and actually making progress in life.

This is the perspective I'm attempting to clarify :

"Plato: Metaphysical Background: The Forms – Plato is not a theist or polytheist, and he is certainly not a biblical theist. When he talks of the divine he is referring to reason (logos), a principle that organizes the world from preexisting matter. What is most distinctive about Plato’s philosophy is his theory of forms, although his description of forms isn’t precise. But Plato thought that knowledge is an active process through which we organize and classify our perceptions. Forms are ideas or concepts which have at least 4 aspects:" continued at the reference...

http://reasonandmeaning.com/2014/10/...-plato-part-1/

Plato speaks to the Logos as does the first 20 verses of the Gospel of John as he refers to the "Word" the "Logos" , the "Christ Being". John was known to be a Greek and some in the churches deny him because of this as his Gospel could be called the gospel of the philosopher.

Read of the forms of Plato and his calling this form Creator of the world the "Word" or the "Logos", that to which the Christian Church knows as the Christ.

To further clarify, John, who wrote this gospel and the "Revelation" and the "Acts of the Apostles " was not the son of Zebedee but the "Risen Lazarus" or he who was the first christian initiate, initiated by Christ Jesus. This is the apostle whom the Lord loved.

Note the change of tone after Lazarus rises for at this point he had become a "new man" with his presentation up to the initiation referenced to the disciple, the past Lazarus.

Please note that what I've presented is "reason" making the connections between the greatest and pivotal event of the earth and the cosmos. This "reason" is the "Word" for in approaching reason without precondition, in a selfless manner, one finds the Christ.

Plato knew, even Aristotle, but in that pivotal event 2100 years ago the Christ being left the heavens and became the "Spirit of the Earth" sitting in the hearts of all men, in the manner of individual redemption.

There is this repeating pattern:
dissatisfaction -> desire for resolution -> awareness of an idea that makes sense -> rest/contentment

This pattern repeats continuously throughout our lives until we die. You operate from this Platonian philosophy because it makes sense to you. Presumably, you previously had a different belief system until you became dissatisfied and sought out something better. Eventually, you will become dissatisfied again and you can either deny the desire for a better solution or you can once again act out this cycle.

We can think about it as a big gameboard, and when we become dissatisfied, then we move around to a new place on the board and draw a card from the "makes sense" pile. What I am talking about is a rejection of the entire game. It's a consistent acknowledgement of the dissatisfaction and the desire for a solution, but a refusal to play the game anymore. If we hold out long enough and continue to maintain our dissatisfaction and desire even as the heat rises, we will be given a better game to play. We go from the known (game 1), to the unknown, and back to the known (game 2).

We can't get to the better game until we go into the unknown, and we won't go into the unknown until we stop drawing from the "makes sense" pile.

*The Logos (since you mentioned it) is what transforms the unknown into the better game. It's what brings forth order from chaos, the known from the unknown, life from death, consciousness from unconsciousness. The Logos is not solely what draws from the "makes sense" pile.

I think it is irrational, but humans are imperfect, and therefore occasionally irrational ourselves. Sometimes incredibly irrational. History has proven this, and so will the future.

We are not artificial computers.

If you were to argue God's existence attempting to use factual evidence, you'd come up a little short.

That's why religion is faith-based.

As an atheist, I do not condemn people for having faith in something. Matter of fact, I WANT there to be something after this life. I don't think there is though. Science had never shown any evidence that a God exists; quite the opposite in fact.

You can argue metaphysics and philosophy. I love the discussion of both.

However, it's not my duty or my career to tell people I think they are incorrect in believing something with faith. It's not falsifiable, and in the philosophical world, not worthy of debate. If it cannot be tested or proven, then further discussion is absolutely unnecessary.

That's how I feel about it, anyway.

This reminds me of the myth of "Kronos" who "eats his children". Ancient Greek understanding of "Kronos" , a titan, had him associated with Saturn, not the planet, but an activity which is associated with cosmic rhythm.

The Saturn influence , so to speak, is that which separates itself from the universe while maintaining its own rhythm. Thus, our solar system, via this influence encloses itself from the outer universe and in this becomes individualized. All to which we see, of the movements of the planets and sun, down to the beings of our planet perform a rhythmic dance , a dance of enclosure.

It was known to the ancient seers that this rhythmic enclosure does not stand for the separation was to be overcome such that each could again become a harmonious region of the universal being (s). therefore the specific rhythm, that to which the entity performed this separation was overcome and this world or being merged again with the universe in its harmonious entelechy.

"Kronos", this Saturn being, or activity at specific times, would "eat his children" , displacing the old rhythms into the universal rhythms of life and the living. Movement is made into the future.

Now, the story is cool and better said, but doesn't stop here for the human being has a history and in this history his past arises and we can speak to the spleen. Not a lot is known about the spleen in modern physiology except that it contains coarse white granules and is considered that somehow it acts as a filter in the digestive system.

Interestingly enough, the spleen can be removed without an appreciable loss of digestive function as apposed to the removal of the liver which would be terminal. If the spleen of white rats is removed there is some pathology but of interest is that a nubbin of materiality begins to form at the site of the excision .

With respect to man, w could say that the functions of the spleen are of a higher supersensible nature for the activity of the spleen continues with its removal.

The ancients had the word "Saturn' associated with the spleen and its activity was called saturnine. The spleen in its activity within the digestive system is faced to the forces of nourishment in which the spleen brings to a salutary rhythm the irregular eating habits of man. this is especially present during modern times when rhythmic nourishment is difficult, at best, to attain.

Man would poison himself with his irregular eating habits if the spleen didn't enter and bring to the blood a regularity of nourishment which faces the blood appropriately. Our cardiac rhythm would not be able to withstand the chaotic forces of nourishment and in this the spleen is our Saturn.

The spleen will become distended after a heavy meal and return to normal in time but other than that the modern look at the spleen is shrouded in mystery. The irregular rhythms of nourishment are "eaten by kronos" and morphed into a bodily rapprochement with the blood.

The evolution of the spleen is questioned and the researcher can look at the menstrual cycle of the female as an understanding as to how man's history and evolution merge.

the menstrual cycle of 28 days is well known for it is apparent that this cycle is associated with the lunar rhythm . The female, does not have her cycles in tandem with the moon but far in the past , as man evolved, it is apparent that man was ensconced within this rhythm as he was a part of, not an observer separated from the moon. Metaphorically, man and the moon were "one".

As man evolved man separated himself from the moon cycle with this cycle manifesting in the bodily physiology separate from but still in awareness. The male gender also has this cycle within but does not manifest as physiological workings as with the female.

Likewise the spleen, as organ of man, and its happenings have entered into the bodily being of man, as a part of the cosmos as apposed to a cosmic cloud in which man was within the splenic or saturnine activity. the past as active present in human evolution.

In not so ancient medicine the word "saturnine" was seen as a gloomy, depressive state , associated with the spleen which in effect, had gone beyond its bounds affecting the proper functioning of the human soul. You could say that isolation is a good thing but too much isolation and focus upon one's self can lead to the throes of a saturnalia, which in modern times is called depression.

A small price to pay for aiming at life, order, fulfillment, sustainability, greatness, etc.

Prioritizing the avoidance of disconnection and depression is missing the deeper truths that say that there are only two opposing forces: the predominant force that trends toward disorder and death, and the opposing potentiality of consciousness. There is no safe status quo; the arrow of time and trend toward disorder prevent that.

The confrontation with death/darkness/depression is unavoidable. We can do it consciously in our pursuit of the highest good or we can choose short-term coping, be at its mercy, and have it gradually swallow us up.

To bring it back to the main topic, the rational moral and existential truths are the shallow truths, the path of least resistance. They are familiar and comfortable, but weak, feeble, and powerless. The deeper moral and existential truths have to be consciously grabbed hold of, against the objections of the intellect. They have to be held onto otherwise we float back up to the shallow and superficial. The deeper truths are inconvenient, burdensome and irrational, but also meaningful and powerful.

Be irrational -> follow the deepest truths -> find meaning -> sacrifice -> become powerful -> unlock consciousness and intelligence

Or

Be rational -> choose the familiar -> fit in -> struggle with meaninglessness -> cope and manage -> stagnate and degrade

As far as I know, the religious stuffs started from nature phenomenons and then somehow expanded, and one reason why it has expanded is that people mixed up feelings with gods, and as so it isn't all irrational.

It isn't necessarily irrational to think that Thor the thunder god is racing his chariot across the sky and creating thunder. It can in fact be a perfectly rational explanation, given the available evidence, authorities and instruments at your disposal. Though I suspect that even in ancient Norse cultures a lot of people thought it was a bit of a hogwash theory.

It would however be very irrational to believe this today, if we assume one has grown up with basic education. Not that empirical science can explain everything perfectly, but there is certainly no need for divine intervention to explain thunder.

But I'd be extremely vary of discounting everything that isn't falsifiable. Even scientific theory has to begin with conjecture, and beyond that we also have advanced scientific models aren't necessarily falsifiable but still merit investigation (string theory being the most well known). And even falsifiable theories can be reduced into components that aren't falsifiable.

The available evidence was that loud noises came from the skies, that's it, so to get from that to 'a god is doing it' is going way beyond the available evidence and so was irrational even then, by the definition I used in the OP. Even if the available "authorities and instruments" included the idea that gods existed, it's still a leap from 'loud noise' to 'god'.


If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't scientific. You don't have to discount it because of course there are other ways of acquiring and understanding knowledge than just science, you just can't apply the scientific method to it at all because science requires falsifiability to eliminate the Problem of induction. By that definition, which is (part of) the accepted definition of what constitutes science, string theory isn't a scientific theory because currently it doesn't meet the criteria. It's more maths than science.

No, "science" does not require falsification. Nor is "scientific method" one thing, there are dozens of scientific methods them and thousands of variations of each. That some dictionaries, encyclopedia and laymen confuse "empirical method" and "scientific method" is an error on them, not the actual definition.

String theory is clearly scientific, that it is conjectural doesn't make it not so. Indeed, the notion that so many physicists would work with something that was at its core unscientific is laughable. It's merely a theoretical field. You're more than allowed to be theoretical in science. Or did we perhaps send out the first spacecraft based on blind faith? No, we did not. We used theoretical approaches, simulations and conjecture based on observation.

But heck, we have other fields that would be impossible under your criteria. We could never have the theory of evolution, orbital mechanics should have been discarded hundreds of years ago, pretty much any particle theory is out the window... all these started as conjecture and some still contain a fair bit of it. Indeed, almost any scientific advance would be "unscientific" since all science has to start with conjecture.

But of course, the ultimate ramification is far worse. We can't falsify that falsification works. Therefore falsification (which is conjectural) would have to be unscientific according to you. So congratulations, you just claimed science can not exist.

We've been over this before. You keep wanting to assert all sorts of conditions on science that simply aren't there. This goes all the way back to post #46 (though your problems were pointed out before that as well).

Sure, we can employ some form of science that doesn't require falsifiablity, and now you can't be sure that your conclusions are not inductive, and they become unreliable.


String theory is 'scientific' in an informal sense, and scientists can be engaged in studying it, but since it fails to meet several criteria that would qualify it as a scientific theory I don't think it's useful to muddy the waters calling it science properly.

And no, we didn't send the first spacecraft based on 'blind faith', they were the result of extensive testing, each stage tested thoroughly before moving on to the next, and the results of those tests used to improve understanding, much of which could be achieved actually without even leaving the planet's surface since we are able to create vacuum and conditions free of gravity without actually going into space and we already had a good understanding of the physics, such as ballistics, reaction forces, inertia etc.

They're not my criteria and Evolution very firmly meets all the criteria that qualify it as properly as a scientific theory (In exactly the way that ID doesn't.)

Your "We can't falsify that falsification works." is misunderstanding both the purpose and application of falsification. Since it's purpose is, as previously mentioned, is to solve the Problem of induction, that is either achieved or it isn't. If a hypothesis can't be falsified, then it's not considered safe from the problem of induction, cannot be considered reliable, and can never advance to the status of scientific theory. So, it's trivially easy to show that falsification can be proved as an effective method, with a specific purpose that it serves well.

So I haven't proved that science doesn't exist, I think you proved that you don't understand what falsifiability is.

It does now, but it would have failed your criteria for 50 years and as such according to you it is the result of an unscientific process. As is pretty much all science.

And of course it's your criteria, you're the one who keeps repeating them ad nauseum.

"Falsification is sound because it has worked well". Interesting that you don't realize that you are describing inductive reasoning.

No, they're 'the' criteria, and I mention them when I think they're relevant, which they are a lot in this conversation. And Evolution was simply a hypothesis up until it met all the criteria and was supported by sufficient evidence to be considered a Theory. You are aware of how differently the word theory is treated in science, than in day to day use, right?


Is Falsification itself Inductive? I would say not. There are only two possible outcomes in falsifiabilty, either we can imagine something that can prove our hypothesis wrong, or we can't (Even if there was something and we didn't think of it at first, but thought of it later, it would then simply meet condition one). For falsifiability itself to be subject to the problem of induction, you would have to accept that there could be more than those two options. I don't think that's logically possible.

"Supported by evidence" does not mean falsified, but nice try.

Possible outcomes of falsification says nothing about how you reached the conclusion that falsification is sound.

And there are more than two outcomes. False positive, false negative, true positive, true negative and no answer.

We've been over this. Back in the days of Random Capitalization of Words...

To which I noted that...

And so you continue onward in ignorance, pressing ever further into the abyss of nonsensical claims about science.

Right. Just as there's only "irrational" (meaning "going beyond the evidence") and "not irrational" (meaning "not going beyond the evidence"). There's absolutely no other way to understand ideas except in binary categories (as defined and described by you), and this is why basically every single conspiracy theory is actually rational.

I included that for the sake of accuracy, not as some trick. Evolution not only meets the criteria to be considered a scientific theory but is backed by ample actual evidence. I'm not really sure what you thought I was trying to do there.

The pertinent point is that until it met those criteria, ToE was just a hypothesis, not a Theory.

The concept of falsification determines the outcomes, which are; can be falsified, can't be falsified. Are you aware of another option?

Two of which meet condition one, can be falsified, and two of which meet condition two, can't be falsified. Shall we call them 'conditions' to avoid this kind of word play confusion?

As interesting as this aside into exactly what falsification/falsifiability is, it doesn't change that it's a scientific criteria that must be met for something to be awarded the status of 'theory'. One of the many reasons that the god theory can't be considered to be a scientific theory is that it can't be falsified.

I think this is most useful for MB to consider:

https://www.wired.com/2013/03/three-...ld-stop-using/

You're getting yourself wrapped up in trying to argue about a science word that you don't actually understand very well. I think that's why you also keep capitalizing these words at random as if that means something to your argument.

Also, at what point in history did evolution cross over from being "just a hypothesis" to a "Theory"? It's not as if there were some specific test of "those criteria" that suddenly created an objective measure of the theory-ness of evolution.

What happens at the "scientific" level is that there are enough people in science who are convinced that such-and-such is an accurate accounting of in the available data. When enough scientists accept something, it's acceptable science. That's the actual criteria. Again, science is a definitively human pursuit.

Falsifiability negates a lot of science (especially in some areas of advanced physics, like cosmology and string theory).

Here's another useful article:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...alsifiability/

I think that's the point! Are untestable models from theoretical science equally 'valid' as tested models from empirical science?

"The consequences of overclaiming the significance of certain theories are profound — the scientific method is at stake (see go.nature.com/hh7mm6). To state that a theory is so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing in our opinion risks misleading students and the public as to how science should be done and could open the door for pseudoscientists to claim that their ideas meet similar requirements.

What to do about it? Physicists, philosophers and other scientists should hammer out a new narrative for the scientific method that can deal with the scope of modern physics. In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory."
(Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics, was linked at the end of yours)

Agreed, that is the point of Falsifiability. (Capitalized purely to drive Aaron nuts, I know he hates it )

Validity is a question that matters just as much to empirical method as any other, in other words to what extent your theory is actually applicable to the world.

You could for instance theorize that there is a brain parasite that makes evangelicals vote Republican and falsify it by survey and statistical control, and you'd find very strong support for your model. But of course, observational evidence would tell you that your model is rubbish.

Designing perfectly falsifiable models that are not valid is completely unproblematic, so obviously falsifiability does not resolve problems of validity. Validity has to be ensured in other aspects of the study design.

And regardless of this, the discussion has never been about the merits of falsification and empirical method, which are proven to be strong and solid contributors to science. It's about whether only empirical method is scientific, which is utter nonsense.

Empiricism deals only with that which can be experienced, through the senses. A theory about something that isn't something that can be perceived through the senses, isn't empirical, isn't science, and can't be a 'theory' in the scientific sense.

Earlier ITT I said something about meeting all the criteria AND being supported by evidence, and you said something about it not being falsifiability and a 'nice try'. And here you are making the same point I was making, that something isn't a theory simply because it meets the criteria, it must also be supported by evidence. But... something for which there is evidence, but which doesn't satisfy the criteria that include falsifiability, isn't science.



Falsifiability isn't intended to 'resolve problems of validity', whatever that is, it's intended to solve the problem of induction. And this conversation, which I started, is not about "whether only empirical method is scientific", it's about what constitutes a rational belief and veered off into a discussion about what constitutes science, and while something can be empirical but not science, science can't not be empirical.

This has no relevance to anything I said.


This was a reference to observational evidence, which according to you is not scientific.

That you can construct perfectly falsifiable models that are nonsense is completely trivial. Falsifiability is not a good criterion for validity.

I responded to a post about validity. Again you are veering of the reservation and just ignoring anything you can't be bothered to understand.

Other than that, falsifiability does not "resolve the problem of induction" - as the only possible way we have of concluding that falsifiability works is through induction.

Look, this is all very simple. You don't know what science is. You think you know, but you don't. Nor do you understand the more complex epistemological issues behind the various scientific methods. Your understanding is far below even that of a basic Method101 course in university. You should do yourself a favor and learn more instead of making a near identical post 40 times in a single thread.

Out of us two it's extremely likely that I'm the only one who has a) Published a scientific paper b) Conducted actual research (using empirical method I might add). c) Studied scientific method. The only advice I can give you is to learn more about the issue and be humble. All scientific methods have weaknesses, but they often complement each-other excellently.