Atheist Elite College.

Mark Hamill · 11-07-2011 6:42pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I spent about a quarter, if not more, of y last post explaining this in detail. If you can't grasp the point I was making at this stage I'm not wasting my time explaining it again.

I never said that any amount of evidence makes a scientific claim.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I repeated my argument many times in my last post for why you're totally dishonest in making this argument, must not even paying attention to the conversation to seriously make an argument like this. If you can't grasp the point I was making at this stage I'm not wasting my time explaining it again.

Well, thats part of your problem. All the repetition just results in "tl:dr". As for the point, the responsibility is on the claimant, and yes he may be dead so, yes, there may not be more evidence forthcoming, and thats why we have multiple reasonable possibilities for the claim. But thats not my fault and not my problem.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I've spent a great deal of my time in this thread making it clear what I meant with this statement, repeating previously unanswered arguments & pointing out more of the ridiculous logic involved in trodding down this path in my last post. Just telling me it's not irrelevant doesn't somehow make it relevant. I've given more than enough arguments for why this is just ridiculous so if you can't grasp the point I was making at this stage (let alone offer up a refutative argument worth any merit) I'm not wasting my time explaining it again.

You have repeatedly misinterpreted everything I've said, repeatedly putting it all in terms of horticulture, so forgive me if I didn't want to wade through you rambling, repetitive, misfiring straw-manning of my points again.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I really took the pIss out of this argument in my last post, however that time I was emphasizing the laxity of what constitutes a conclusion while also constituting a hypothesis. Funny how this latest response magically ignores such nonsense :pac: if you missed that & can't grasp the point I was making, let alone even see the sheer insanity in such logic then I'm not wasting my time explaining it again.

What I described was the scientific method, of taking hypotheses and testing them and seeing which accounts fro the most evidence. If you think that is insane, then it doesn't bode well for your argument and credibility

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Well if you had responded to the substance of my argument with something like this latest example then of course that would happen. You see in elementary conversations involving ideas the goal is not to repeat arguments that have already been discounted it's to address why the discounting of your arguments is wrong. Thus far not even a tap of this has been offered, instead just a repeat of what has been discounted. Every post I've added even more reasons for my arguments. Crying that we'll crash the servers doesn't invalidate any of my points.

No. Every post you have simply ranted and repeated more and more, declared more and more direct points as vague and made more and more strawmen. You have added nothing of value to this argument, you are pedantic and evasive and rambling beyond all reasonableness and it is really getting on my nerves.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The reasons I'll give cannot be expressed scientifically so as such I doubt you'll consider them meaningful. So I'm not going to waste my time responding to a response to this post, I consider it nothing but a way to ignore the arguments put forth in my above post.

So you do it to make it harder to read and respond to, because you aren't interested in honest and interesting debate? Thats nice to know.

Morbert · 11-07-2011 8:03pm

Hallelujah! We might have had a break through

Mark Hamill wrote:

Morbert wrote:

But it is blindingly obvious that the issue of what we can infer from the inability to apply the scientific method is different to the scientific method itself.

No, but its a part of it. That inference is why we have the criteria of falsifiability in presenting hypotheses, so that we can model and test on things that aren't indistinguishable from not existing.

So are you retracting your claim that science (a method of investigation and accumulation of epistemological data), and scientism (a philosophical stance on the authority of the natural sciences, and on what we can infer from the scope of science) are the same? Are you changing your claim, as I recommended in an earlier post, to a weaker one? Are you now merely claiming it is inconsistent to accept the results of science, but to reject scientism?

I dont know what you are arguing here. You are saying science requires you to operate under those assumptions, but that afterwards it doesn't matter what you do. Thats the same as saying that science expects you to accept those assumptions, but only as far as you test something, and afterwards it doesn't matter, which is what I was getting at.

That is exactly what it meant by methodological naturalism. They accept science as an systematic accumulation of an epistemological description of the universe, but also hold ontological beliefs about the existence of God.

I will leave aside the other tangents for the moment, as I am close to getting you to accept my simple point.

Mark Hamill · 12-07-2011 4:09pm

Morbert wrote: »

Hallelujah! We might have had a break through

At the very least, the posts are getting shorter.

Morbert wrote: »

So are you retracting your claim that science (a method of investigation and accumulation of epistemological data), and scientism (a philosophical stance on the authority of the natural sciences, and on what we can infer from the scope of science) are the same? Are you changing your claim, as I recommended in an earlier post, to a weaker one? Are you now merely claiming it is inconsistent to accept the results of science, but to reject scientism?

No, because that inference, scientism, is a part of science, its a fundamental criteria, informed by the empirical assumptions, for creating hypotheses to test. To accept the methodology of science is to accept that inference.

Turtwig · 12-07-2011 5:45pm

Ahh jaysus lads, I haven't had much time on my hands lately, so I fell a bit behind in this thread. Now I find I've got all THAT to read up on.:eek:
I take it Morbert is still right though?;)

Morbert · 12-07-2011 6:11pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

At the very least, the posts are getting shorter.

No, because that inference, scientism, is a part of science, its a fundamental criteria, informed by the empirical assumptions, for creating hypotheses to test. To accept the methodology of science is to accept that inference.

But even if you hold that scientism is part of science, this is not the same as your earlier claim that scientism "is the same as" science. Do you now recognise the difference between a method which stems from epistemological considerations, and a philosophical position? I do not agree with the claim that accepting science implies accepting scientism, but what first must be put to bed is the notion that science and scientism are the same. To accept the real number system is to accept the order of the reals is Dedekind-complete. But this does not mean Dedekind-completeness is the same as the real number system.

Mark Hamill · 14-07-2011 6:35pm

Morbert wrote: »

But even if you hold that scientism is part of science, this is not the same as your earlier claim that scientism "is the same as" science. Do you now recognise the difference between a method which stems from epistemological considerations, and a philosophical position? I do not agree with the claim that accepting science implies accepting scientism, but what first must be put to bed is the notion that science and scientism are the same. To accept the real number system is to accept the order of the reals is Dedekind-complete. But this does not mean Dedekind-completeness is the same as the real number system.

If accepting science amounts to the same as accepting scientism, then in what way are they functionally different?

Morbert · 14-07-2011 7:03pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If accepting science amounts to the same as accepting scientism, then in what way are they functionally different?

Scientism does not pertain to a function or method. It pertains to an idea about the authority and scope of the scientific method and its function. So even if accepting science implied accepting scientism, they would be "functionally different", just as science and empiricism are different, even though accepting science amounts to accepting empiricism, at least for the purposes of this line of debate.

Mark Hamill · 18-07-2011 11:06am

Morbert wrote: »

Scientism does not pertain to a function or method. It pertains to an idea about the authority and scope of the scientific method and its function. So even if accepting science implied accepting scientism, they would be "functionally different", just as science and empiricism are different, even though accepting science amounts to accepting empiricism, at least for the purposes of this line of debate.

If scientism pertains to the authority and scope of the scientific method, then it does pertain to a method. If you accept scientism, then you accept that the universe is consistent and measurable and that science is our best available way to take advantage of that. If you accept the scientific method, then you accept that the universe is consistent and measurable and that science is our best available way to take advantage of that. You might argue that scientism comes at from the philosophical side, the method comes at it from the functional side, but either way you end up relying on the science method for understanding the universe over other forms of inquiry, so any distinction is largely moot.

MrPudding · 18-07-2011 11:44am

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It'd be half the length if he used the whole horizontal space...

I have always been curious why all his posts are like that...

MrP

Turtwig · 18-07-2011 11:46am

MrPudding wrote: »

I have always been curious why all his posts are like that...

MrP

He's shallow.:pac:

sponsoredwalk · 18-07-2011 11:56am

MrPudding wrote: »

I have always been curious why all his posts are like that...

MrP

There's an excellent reason for why I do this :cool::

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you do it to make it harder to read and respond to, because you aren't interested in honest and interesting debate? Thats nice to know.

:pac:

Morbert · 18-07-2011 4:43pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If scientism pertains to the authority and scope of the scientific method, then it does pertain to a method. If you accept scientism, then you accept that the universe is consistent and measurable and that science is our best available way to take advantage of that. If you accept the scientific method, then you accept that the universe is consistent and measurable and that science is our best available way to take advantage of that. You might argue that scientism comes at from the philosophical side, the method comes at it from the functional side, but either way you end up relying on the science method for understanding the universe over other forms of inquiry, so any distinction is largely moot.

Again, you are arguing for the weaker claim of "accepting science implies accepting scientism, and accepting scientism implies accepting science.". This is not an argument for the claim "science and scientism are the same". The word "science" refers to a method, or the results of the method. The word "scientism" refers to a philosophical opinion about the scope and authority of the method. Do you agree that "an opinion about the scope and authority of the method" is not the same as "the method"?

MrPudding · 18-07-2011 6:29pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

There's an excellent reason for why I do this :cool::

Well, as long as there is an excellent reason.

MrP

Galvasean · 18-07-2011 6:32pm

Usually when I see the word 'scientism' I despair

MrPudding · 19-07-2011 3:00am

Galvasean wrote: »

Usually when I see the word 'scientism' I despair

I'm afraid I missed the scientism memo. What the hell is it exactly?

MrP

The Mad Hatter · 19-07-2011 1:23pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

There's an excellent reason for why I do this :cool::

It always reads to me like you're taking gasping breaths half way through every sentence, like a kid telling a story.

Mark Hamill · 19-07-2011 3:26pm

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are arguing for the weaker claim of "accepting science implies accepting scientism, and accepting scientism implies accepting science.". This is not an argument for the claim "science and scientism are the same". The word "science" refers to a method, or the results of the method. The word "scientism" refers to a philosophical opinion about the scope and authority of the method. Do you agree that "an opinion about the scope and authority of the method" is not the same as "the method"?

What if the method includes and requires assumptions about the universe which inform and imply that scope and authority? Strictly speaking, in general yes there is a difference, but in the case of scientism and the scientific method (with its starting assumptions), the difference is moot, as the method requires that particular philosophical opinion.

Enkidu · 19-07-2011 8:32pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Usually when I see the word 'scientism' I despair

I would expect that of you scientismists. Can you prove you "feel" despair with your science, hmm?

Galvasean · 20-07-2011 12:11am

MrPudding wrote: »

I'm afraid I missed the scientism memo. What the hell is it exactly?

MrP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
However, on this forum it is often used in a manner akin to, "Science is a religion too!!!"

Morbert · 20-07-2011 1:33pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What if the method includes and requires assumptions about the universe which inform and imply that scope and authority? Strictly speaking, in general yes there is a difference, but in the case of scientism and the scientific method (with its starting assumptions), the difference is moot, as the method requires that particular philosophical opinion.

It is good that we got the first issue out of the way. Onwards and upwards.

It would be more correct to say both science and scientism stem from the same set of assumptions (empiricism). I.e. It could be argued that, since the acceptance of empiricism leads to the acceptance of both science and scientism, to accept science is to accept scientism. There is further confusion, as science, in the context of scientism, refers to the natural sciences. But you have defined it to include all systematic fields of study, such as mathematics, ethics, and history.

I reject scientism if it defined as "a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge" or "A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences." or when "theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain."[Wikipedia]. But I accept all and every established scientific theory, or scientific investigation.

I would accept scientism if it was defined as "The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists."

Mark Hamill · 21-07-2011 5:50pm

Morbert wrote: »

I reject scientism if it defined as "a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge"

Do you have any alternative, any method that has a non-scientific but still reliable way of verification?
I dont know if science is actually capable of describing all reality and knowledge, I just believe, that out of the methods humanity has come up with, it is the best method we have to explain things. I'm open to alternatives.

Morbert wrote: »

I reject scientism if it defined as ... "A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences." or when "theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain."[Wikipedia].

Again, I dont know if physical science will ever be able to explain human behaviour or decide upon philosophical conjecture (or even if the explanations, as complex as I assume they would be, would be more practical than what we got already), but I fail to see how people can deny the application of the general scientific method to any field without invoking some supernatural element or hiding in vague definitions to avoid testing.

Morbert wrote: »

But I accept all and every established scientific theory, or scientific investigation.

What part of the scientific method do you think restricts it from investigation of human behaviour?

Morbert · 21-07-2011 6:49pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you have any alternative, any method that has a non-scientific but still reliable way of verification?
I dont know if science is actually capable of describing all reality and knowledge, I just believe, that out of the methods humanity has come up with, it is the best method we have to explain things. I'm open to alternatives.

I do not have any alternative method. I do not believe there is any better alternative to the investigation of phenomena.

Again, I dont know if physical science will ever be able to explain human behaviour or decide upon philosophical conjecture (or even if the explanations, as complex as I assume they would be, would be more practical than what we got already), but I fail to see how people can deny the application of the general scientific method to any field without invoking some supernatural element or hiding in vague definitions to avoid testing.

What part of the scientific method do you think restricts it from investigation of human behaviour?

I believe any restriction is due to the difficulty of characterising behaviour and sociological phenomena in terms of first principles. This problem is not a fundamental problem with science. Such restrictions, therefore, might be temporary, as is suggested by advances in psychology and neuroscience.

I do know, however, that there is plenty of philosophical conjecture that the scientific method will not be able to answer, as much of philosophical conjecture is an exploration of tautologies and inferences, and does not regard phenomena.

HansHolzel · 15-09-2013 11:33am

As for Dawkins combining money-grubbing with his elitism, see the BBC news website 5 June 2011

Academics launch £18,000 college in London

A private college in England aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge is being launched by leading academics. The New College of the Humanities says it will teach "gifted" undergraduates and prepare them for degrees from the University of London. The privately-owned London-based college will open in September 2012 and is planning to charge fees of £18,000. The 14 professors involved include biologist Richard Dawkins and historian Sir David Cannadine. Based in Bloomsbury, central London, the new college says it will offer eight undergraduate courses in the humanities taught by some of the world's most prominent academics.

Degrees cover five subject areas - law, economics, history, English literature and philosophy. Students will also take three "intellectual skills" modules in science literacy, logic and critical thinking and applied ethics. The college will award its own Diploma and students will take University of London degrees, making a combined award of BA Hons (London) DNC. Professor AC Grayling, the philosopher who will be the college's first Master, secured millions of pounds of funding from investors to set up the institution. The college will not be part of the UCAS applications process, with each application considered "individually, personally and on its merits". It also has scholarships and "exhibition schemes" to "ensure that finance should not be a barrier to any talented UK student". But the University and College Union (UCU) said the launch of the new college - and state funding cuts for arts, humanities and social sciences - would result in the subjects becoming the preserve of a "select few". UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: "While many would love the opportunity to be taught by the likes of AC Grayling and Richard Dawkins, at £18,000 a go it seems it won't be the very brightest but those with the deepest pockets who are afforded the chance. The government has set fees in England's public universities at a maximum of £9,000 from September next year.

Dave! · 15-09-2013 1:07pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

As for Dawkins combining money-grubbing with his elitism, see the BBC news website 5 June 2011

Academics launch £18,000 college in London

A private college in England aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge is being launched by leading academics. The New College of the Humanities says it will teach "gifted" undergraduates and prepare them for degrees from the University of London. The privately-owned London-based college will open in September 2012 and is planning to charge fees of £18,000. The 14 professors involved include biologist Richard Dawkins and historian Sir David Cannadine. Based in Bloomsbury, central London, the new college says it will offer eight undergraduate courses in the humanities taught by some of the world's most prominent academics.

Degrees cover five subject areas - law, economics, history, English literature and philosophy. Students will also take three "intellectual skills" modules in science literacy, logic and critical thinking and applied ethics. The college will award its own Diploma and students will take University of London degrees, making a combined award of BA Hons (London) DNC. Professor AC Grayling, the philosopher who will be the college's first Master, secured millions of pounds of funding from investors to set up the institution. The college will not be part of the UCAS applications process, with each application considered "individually, personally and on its merits". It also has scholarships and "exhibition schemes" to "ensure that finance should not be a barrier to any talented UK student". But the University and College Union (UCU) said the launch of the new college - and state funding cuts for arts, humanities and social sciences - would result in the subjects becoming the preserve of a "select few". UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: "While many would love the opportunity to be taught by the likes of AC Grayling and Richard Dawkins, at £18,000 a go it seems it won't be the very brightest but those with the deepest pockets who are afforded the chance. The government has set fees in England's public universities at a maximum of £9,000 from September next year.

It's a private college, what exactly is your problem with them charging fees and raising money from investors?

They'll have scholarships too, which I imagine they're under no obligation to provide, given that it's private.

Good for him.

HansHolzel · 15-09-2013 1:10pm

Dave! wrote: »

It's a private college, what exactly is your problem with them charging fees and raising money from investors?

They'll have scholarships too, which I imagine they're under no obligation to provide, given that it's private.

Good for him.

Is this support of elitism just a prelude to the threat of a ban?

Dave! · 15-09-2013 1:15pm

Yes. Don't come to the Non-Drinkers forum or you'll suffer my wrath.

(I don't mod A&A)

Corkfeen · 15-09-2013 1:16pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

Is this support of elitism just a prelude to the threat of a ban?

Erm. Are you saying that private universities shouldn't be allowed to choose what fees they charge? Why didn't you address his point that the university offers scholarships? A newly established university isn't cheap to run btw so I'd suspect much of the fees go directly back into the university. But even if they don't and it's an elite University, eh big deal.

HansHolzel · 15-09-2013 1:21pm

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm. Are you saying that private universities shouldn't be allowed to choose what fees they charge? Why didn't you address his point that the university offers scholarships? A newly established university isn't cheap to run btw so I'd suspect much of the fees go directly back into the university. But even if they don't and it's an elite University, eh big deal.

The point is that Dawkins puts himself forth as a beacon of enlightenment yet he lends his name and time to this educational initiative that is more in tune with the blue-blood privilege of the past. A few scholarships for the plebs? Big deal. Note too that the report mentioned the backers being "investors" rather than, say, philanthropists. This is just another elitist wheeze dreamt up by Dawkins and his chums.

Dave! wrote: »

Yes. Don't come to the Non-Drinkers forum or you'll suffer my wrath.

(I don't mod A&A)

OK, I can live with that.

Dave! · 15-09-2013 1:39pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

The point is that Dawkins puts himself forth as a beacon of enlightenment yet he lends his name and time to this educational initiative that is more in tune with the blue-blood privilege of the past. A few scholarships for the plebs? Big deal. Note too that the report mentioned the backers being "investors" rather than, say, philanthropists. This is just another elitist wheeze dreamt up by Dawkins and his chums.

Yes, they're investors, because it is, among other things, a business. Why would you begrudge a group of people who have spent their lives studying and reaching a certain level of expertise in an area then trying to make money from it? Do you begrudge every private company that tries to turn a profit ("the plebs" can't afford iPads either, oh noes!), or is it just people educated in the humanities rather than (say) engineering or computer science who have to commit to a life of public service?

HansHolzel · 15-09-2013 1:45pm

Promoting social inequality (in this case, through a service business) is of course not a crime but neither is it characteristic of the 'enlightenment' and 'reason' that Dawkins preaches.

Atheist Elite College.

Comments