Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, the theory (and experimental evidence for it) will undergo peer review, where those involved in the area will attempt to pick apart the theory and find weaknesses in the experiment(s) conducted to prove the theory. Au contraire, new facts are not proven by those promoting the new theory, but those trying to disprove it.
This is how it works in the hard sciences. The social sciences are a different kettle of fish but that is why they are considered soft (I don't consider much of it science at all). Don't confuse the two!

Also, with the likes of physics, previous "facts" are not necessarily pushed into the background, but they are seen to be special cases of a more general model eg Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics.

Again, this is nothing like religion at all. Religion evolves primarily based on what is now considered morally acceptable and can flip-flop as such.



Such as?



Science is very understandable if you bother to learn it.

This +1000

Gynoid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bald is a hair colour.


Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Not the same. I do not believe in Santa is a belief that Santa does not exist.

Gynoid

Brian? wrote: »

We don’t know what we don’t know, so I won’t factor that into my decision. To do so would be irrational.

Science factors in the unknown all the time. It is essentially an ongoing investigation into the unknown. Making the unknown known. Scientists know there are unknowns...oh look, haha, just the thought that not factoring in unknowns is rational makes me smile. Have at it.

Gynoid

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

By the same token, I can depict religious people as intolerant bigots but that's not helpful.

Telling people what they really believe is just condescending to be honest.

Telling people what you believe, no matter what, theist atheist, is the same thing. It is your BELIEF. Atheists just happen to think their belief is intellectually superior, but the fact is, they do not KNOW. Just like everyone else.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

Science factors in the unknown all the time. It is essentially an ongoing investigation into the unknown. Making the unknown known. Scientists know there are unknowns...oh look, haha, just the thought that not factoring in unknowns is rational makes me smile. Have at it.

It's completely irrational to say "loads of stuff is unknown, so there's a god.". Which is what you're doing. It's actually nonsensical.

Gynoid

Brian? wrote: »

It's completely irrational to say "loads of stuff is unknown, so there's a god.". Which is what you're doing. It's actually nonsensical.

Nope. I am saying loads of stuff is unknown so we do not know if there is a god or not. Or what that even could be. It is completely different than what you think I am saying.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

Nope. I am saying loads of stuff is unknown so we do not know if there is a god or not. Or what that even could be. It is completely different than what you think I am saying.

You believe in God? Why?

ancapailldorcha

Gynoid wrote: »

Telling people what you believe, no matter what, theist atheist, is the same thing. It is your BELIEF. Atheists just happen to think their belief is intellectually superior, but the fact is, they do not KNOW. Just like everyone else.

Why do you exempt religious people from this mass generalisation? You say Atheists believe themselves superior without anything of substance to back it up but religious people thinking other people are stupid for either following what they consider the wrong faith or none at all are fine by your reckoning.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

Telling people what you believe, no matter what, theist atheist, is the same thing. It is your BELIEF. Atheists just happen to think their belief is intellectually superior, but the fact is, they do not KNOW. Just like everyone else.

Why are you so happy to group all atheists together? The only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in a deity.

Gynoid

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why do you exempt religious people from this mass generalisation? You say Atheists believe themselves superior without anything of substance to back it up but religious people thinking other people are stupid for either following what they consider the wrong faith or none at all are fine by your reckoning.

I don't. I did not mention religious peoples narrowness of belief at all. I was talking about atheism as a belief system.

ancapailldorcha

Gynoid wrote: »

I don't. I did not mention religious peoples narrowness of belief at all. I was talking about atheism as a belief system.

Precisely my point. You scorn Atheists but everyone else gets a pass.

Gynoid

Brian? wrote: »

You believe in God? Why?

I actually told you that earlier. Intellectually I cannot help but be agnostic, emotionally I choose to believe, but I have no idea of what God is at all. Not this, not that. I have been fairly clear, I think. We live in an almost unspeakably improbable situation, on a goldilocks planet as a highly intelligent human species and with endless other diversity hurtling through insanely vast spaces, therefore to begin to define what is and what is not is tentative at best. To say there is no God (not a cartoon visualisation of that) is impossible. To say there are not multiple iterations of universes in a pancake style manifestation is also not possible etc etc. It is all just incredibly unknown.

Gynoid

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Precisely my point. You scorn Atheists but everyone else gets a pass.

No they don't. I was just not talking about them

Skylinehead

Gynoid wrote: »

We live in an almost unspeakably improbable situation, on a goldilocks planet as a highly intelligent human species and with endless other diversity hurtling through insanely vast spaces

Is it unspeakably improbable? The universe is fairly huge, the odds are that there's plenty of life out there.

Gynoid

Skylinehead wrote: »

Is it unspeakably improbable? The universe is fairly huge, the odds are that there's plenty of life out there.

That things exist at all is improbable. Especially as they apparently are, with our present very limited knowledge. It's a mind blowing state of affairs.

sbsquarepants

Gynoid wrote: »

It is exactly the 'belief-y-ness' of it that makes it a faith. Non belief is a belief. Atheists dont say I do not know, they say I do not believe. I do not know is agnostic.

Non belief is not a belief anymore than a non carrot is a carrot.

But having an alernative belief is no problem in any case. You can have faith in whatever the hell you like, so long as it's not a deity.
Want to believe in unicorns, that's fine...fairies, that's fine, ice giants, also fine, dragons, i mean who doesn't believe in dragons?

There is only one "thou shalt not"

Gynoid

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Non belief is not a belief anymore than a non carrot is a carrot.

But having an alernative belief is no problem in any case. You can have faith in whatever the hell you like, so long as it's not a deity.
Want to believe in unicorns, that's fine...fairies, that's fine, ice giants, also fine, dragons, i mean who doesn't believe in dragons?

There is only one "thou shalt not"

You try to unmake the argument and then make it. But that is cool. There is only one thou shalt not

By the way the sentence I do not believe in God is different in meaning to the sentence I believe there is no God. The first is speculative, the second is dogmatic. Atheists usually resort to the second formulation, they say There is no God . Sometimes directly, but more often indirectly, by laughing at the very idea of people who have belief in God and scorning sky fairies etc. It is a clash of 2 belief systems. An agnostic will say I do not know, they may even say I do not believe in God, because they recognise they have made a choice of belief in the face of an unknown state, but an Atheist will affirm as a matter of faith There is no God. It is different.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Such as?

I'll use an article since they tend to explain things better than I do:

"In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D.

It's a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren't applicable to the system you're dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that's why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary."

Science is very understandable if you bother to learn it.

The same article has a variety of mathematical formula which makes my eyes go cross-eyed... and I did say that one could learn to understand the scientific explanations. Just that its similar to the rituals or explanations that priests followed, like having Latin only available to nobles/priests which increased the effectiveness of the belief in those ceremonies.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Non belief is not a belief anymore than a non carrot is a carrot.

But having an alernative belief is no problem in any case. You can have faith in whatever the hell you like, so long as it's not a deity.
Want to believe in unicorns, that's fine...fairies, that's fine, ice giants, also fine, dragons, i mean who doesn't believe in dragons?

There is only one "thou shalt not"

And if I believe in the possibility of everything without needing a firm structure for that belief?

sbsquarepants

It's semantics really

Is "i don't believe dragons exist" the same thing as "i believe dragons don't exist".

To my mind they are subtly different things.

One is passive and the other is active.

sbsquarepants

Gynoid wrote: »

It is a clash of 2 belief systems. An agnostic will say I do not know, they may even say I do not believe in God, because they recognise they have made a choice of belief in the face of an unknown state, but an Atheist will affirm as a matter of faith There is no God. It is different.

My own personal take is anyone who states there is definitely no god, is as deluded as one who states there definitely is. There is simply no way of knowing for certain.

However, you can make a bet on which scenario you find more likely and, again personally speaking, i think the no god scenario is the hugely more likely of the 2.

Likely enough for me to bet my eternal soul on the outcome!
(Joke btw, like most white boys, i just don't got no soul:D)

Gynoid

sbsquarepants wrote: »

My own personal take is anyone who states there is definitely no god, is as deluded as one who states there definitely is. There is simply no way of knowing for certain.

However, you can make a bet on which scenario you find more likely and, again personally speaking, i think the no god scenario is the hugely more likely of the 2.

Likely enough for me to bet my eternal soul on the outcome!
(Joke btw, like most white boys, i just don't got no soul:D)

That is agnosticism.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

And if I believe in the possibility of everything without needing a firm structure for that belief?

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

nkl12xtw5goz70

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is "i don't believe dragons exist" the same thing as "i believe dragons don't exist".

I don't see them as equivalent. The first leaves open the chance that a perceived impossibility might be disproven. The second statement admits no possibility that the statement could later be disproven.

sbsquarepants

Gynoid wrote: »

That is agnosticism.

I think you're being overly strict with your definitions.

You can't prove the non existence of anything, so anyone who states categorically that "x" doesn't exist, is pretty much talking nonsense. Or at least saying something they can't ever prove....therefore a certain element of "faith" or "belief" is required.

sbsquarepants

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

I don't see them as equivalent. The first leaves open the chance that a perceived impossibility might be disproven. The second statement admits no possibility that the statement could later be disproven.

I know where you're coming from but i wouldn't go that far. They are different statements as i understand them, but any belief can be proven wrong at a later date.

The difference to my mind is the first is not really doing anything, the second is an active state - you are actively doing the believing as opposed to merely doing nothing.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll use an article since they tend to explain things better than I do:

"In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D.

It's a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren't applicable to the system you're dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that's why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary."

Again, how is this in anyway similar to religion. A religious person believes their religion and parables are the correct ones with no evidence whatsoever. And they do not try to find any testable evidence for their beliefs Religion is all based on hearsay, and that's fair enough, it's religion, not science. But nothing is based on testable evidence.

I know of no scientist who has claimed that their theory holds for absolutely everywhere in the Universe. Even Einsteins theory of relativity is considered not to be 100% correct. And even if you said you believed it to be correct for the whole Universe, you would at least have evidence to show that this is potentially the case (eg we can detect gravitational waves, can view the bending of light throughout space). And this is the big difference.

A theory will start with assumptions based on the nature of reality as we know it and will then have to be proven through experiment to be correct. If the nature of reality is found to be different then we thought, a new theory is likely to spring up in it's place as per the example I gave of Newtonian and Quantum Mechanics. This doesn't mean that the old theory is necessarily wrong. Science doesn't claim to know all the answers. Religion does. Regardless, this assumption based business is really only true of physics. A biologist is unlikely to have such problems as they deal with the World, not the Universe.

You do realise you are going down the path of relativists such as 20cent, by claiming there is no objective reality? Nothing is real, there is no truth. I didn't put you down as a relativist.

Deleted User wrote: »

The same article has a variety of mathematical formula which makes my eyes go cross-eyed... and I did say that one could learn to understand the scientific explanations. Just that its similar to the rituals or explanations that priests followed, like having Latin only available to nobles/priests which increased the effectiveness of the belief in those ceremonies.

But the maths used to understand Physics is available to everyone. Normal language is not effective to describe the World around us, whereas Maths is very effective at doing such. That's why Maths is used. It's not so only us noble chosen ones can really know.
There is no reason for priests having to speak Latin, Jesus didn't even speak Latin. It is quite simply not the same thing at all.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

One thing I've noticed about people my age, particularly those that are leftwing, is that it's always a game of all or nothing. The concept of people picking bits of ideas from across the political spectrum seems to be alien to them. So if yiu are to be left wing you Have to be pro self I'd, pro choice, pro free-frees, pro immigration etc. Any deviation and immediately you are considered to be on the right, and in some cases alt-right.

The idea of someone being politically on the right, yet still in favour of USC, is unfathomable.

Yup. I’m left-wing but there are a few conservative writers whom I enjoy. And what’s wrong with that? On this thread, during the trans issue debate of last week, a poster here basically said that they won’t agree with any of the concerns about trans issues because they don’t like some of the people who express those concerns. Then they’re not really thinking about the issue in and of itself, are they? And they seemed determined to categorise anyone with concerns as a loon, a bigot or surely right wing. If my political views were categorised based on my concerns about trans issues alone, I’d surely be classed as right wing. Luckily, left wing journalists are beginning to stick their head above the parapet with concerns (e.g. Sonia Poulton).

Or like I was a yes voter all the way on the issue of the eighth referendum. My father was voting no and, like me, not for turning. He and I were able to discuss the topic without it ever getting heated and listen to each other’s viewpoint. Because we’re grown ups.

Gynoid

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Or like I was a yes voter all the way on the issue of the eighth referendum. My father was voting no and, like me, not for turning. He and I were able to discuss the topic without it ever getting heated and listen to each other’s viewpoint. Because we’re grown ups.

That is a lovely state of affairs.

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

That is agnosticism.

No it isn’t.

You’ve a very narrow definition of atheist.