Most of that is wrong...
Start with "Not understanding how smart folks DO NOT GET vaccine science."...
I have no difficulty understanding how smart folks do not get vaccine science... because... its complicated... and most people don't have the tools or the education to understand it. So, you trust "experts"... ? The puzzle isn't that smart people don't understand it... but that smart people who don't understand it... PRETEND that they do... while insisting they're right... about something they really know next to nothing about...
Where does that behavior come from ?
Note that "agreeing to take the experimental medicine under false pretenses" while not even understanding that's what it is, and that is what is happening... is not the same thing as "understanding vaccine science" ?
Vaccines are NOT A GUARANTEE.. just a mitigator.. ALWAYS been that way .. If you do not want to improve your odds.. said it before YOU R DOING THE SPECIES A FAVOUR.
Reality is more complex than that... as different decisions are made by different people in different ways for different reasons... Some just do what they are told. Others refuse only because told. But, for those who do think about "odds"... and seek to improve them... it is obviously not inherently right to assume that people who agree with you are those who care to improve their odds... and people who don't agree with you are wilfully uncaring of self interest... and naturally dooming themselves to a Darwin Award ?
The outcome of choices, of course, will not depend on how certain you are that your are right... but only on whether you are right, or not. So, fully depends on which one is right... and that may not be you ? People don't and can't approach a question with the same perspective, or the same information... some will have different perspectives... and draw different conclusions... from the same or different information. So, that's the same issue as where on the line (between holism and reductionism) you decide to sit to observe... and how capable you are of seeing issues from more than one viewpoint... while understanding the differences that emerge from seeing things from more than one perspective... and judging which should have greater weight.. ? And, in judging... judge for yourself... and not based on others impassioned marketing efforts ?
Is the Delta variant... just a marketing ploy... to make a second run at "the agnostic" ? What evidence is there... ?
There is no "one right spot" to observe from... ? Which is still not saying all opinions are equally valid.
But, also, not ever a "one sized fits all... one right answer"... rather than a reality that different people make different choices... and then shit happens... and we determine the winners and losers afterwards... only when that is possible.
God and religious belief ? OK.
trust in wrong probabilities or God.. who DOES NOT CARE...U R Not as smart as you think .. There is no pettyy venal entity reeqiring our homage.. what a LOAD...
Wrong probabilities ? What does that mean ? What it means to me... is that you don't understand probability... but, more, that you think the existence of God, or not, is somehow a thing that is the subject of your own efforts in reductionist determinism ? God's existence, or not, doesn't depend on your capacity to do math properly... assuming you have the proper inputs to do that math... nor does it depend on what you believe, or why you believe it, in any reason you have. God exists, or he doesn't... and that's not about you.
"who DOES NOT CARE"... has you making value judgments about what someone else, who you don't know, thinks and feels ? That's not tenable, obviously. But, it seems to emphasize how important it is to you that other people must not believe that they are cared for ? The result is a circular bit of logic... as God has to exist to not care. As you insist he doesn't exist... then, you are angry that other people believe themselves to be cared for ?
There is no petty venal entity reeqiring our homage.
Yes there are... easily thousands and thousands of people like that... and, then, that describes government, too... whether communists or kings... along with many other such entities, or sub-entities... but all of that has almost nothing to do with God... ?
Although, in some religions, with multiple Gods, I think it true that the believers recognize that some fit that description ? And, it is worth trying to understand that... to see the world from a different perspective.
Beyond all that... I think you just don't understand the position you occupy on the line from which you are observing philosophy... and what that position imposes on you as limits... both in what you can see... and in what you can understand...
You are occupying a place on the line I'm quite familiar and comfortable with... where reason prevails... where science makes sense... without anyone being omniscient or infallible... (as opposed to the modern conception in which "science" is deemed such, and assumes all of the traits of a religion...)
Philosophy... is broad... has a wide range of tools, including reason... logic, math and science... It occupies a far more holistic position on the continuum between reductionism and holism than science can occupy.
Science... is only a limited subset of philosophy... and takes a limited subset of its tools... and applies them in a particular limited method... to narrowly LIMIT what it can consider, to that which is observable... and does that to seek the truth of "what is" through the operation of that method. Science... looks at the world through a soda straw... and in result, can't see very much. Science works by limiting what you can see... !!!! The establishment of that limiting set in a threshold for consideration as "science"... doesn't mean that only things that can be seen (from where-ever it is you plunk down on the science line, to accept those limits in view) exist... or matter... or are real ?
That science is deliberately blind to some things... does not mean they don't exist... or that being blind to them is good... ?
Science is not the only way to look at the world... and it is not the only "right" way to look at the world. Adopting that as a belief... is only limiting you from seeing "what is"... that can be seen by, and best considered by, other means... but cannot ever be seen by science... because of its self imposed limits. Science... does not have a monopoly on reason... or truth ? It is not only narrow in its method... but in its potential.
Other branches of philosophy also have much to contribute to how we see and understand the world... and to how we consider those things that cannot be seen... That doesn't make philosophy any more omniscient or infallible than science... but it does mean that philosophical ideas are JUST AS VALID whether or not the method of science can falsify or validate them ?
When the apple fell and hit Newton... he gained some greater understanding of how gravity works... but he didn't create gravity... the gravity was already there for him to observe. How it (and everything else) got there... is a different question than how it works in relation to other things that can also be observed ? It would be an error to deny gravity existed... until Newton "sort of" explained how it functions ? But, how did we ever get on without Newton explaining it to us, first ?
Science... is not a definitive catalog of "what is" ? We probably don't know most of "what is" yet ?
So, a couple issue emerge. Science is almost always wrong about "proven theory"... being truth. Theory is not truth... ever... not even when proven. it is always only our best guess at the moment... given current limits imposed in our understanding... imposed by where we sit on the line to be able to observe... what science imposes as additional limits in how and what we are allowed to observe... and, yes, those additional points in our own unique limits in U R Not as smart as you think
So, it is fundamentally wrong, to try to equate what you believe, that is different than what others believe, as a proof of any superiority... when all it is... and all it CAN BE... is a different belief...
That's not me preaching that all ideas are equal... or that every philosophy or its derivatives are as good as another... which I don't believe to be true... but is me preaching that tolerance of others beliefs, within the limits of tolerance that our own allow, is no skin off your nose, or others... and is no reason to be angry... because some people believe stuff you don't...
Religious tolerance... a good idea that is easily derived from logic alone... But, religious tolerance does not mean its a good idea for us to restore full and equal weight to... ancient northern European or central American religions that centered on human sacrifice... to allow them to resume that practice ?
First, do no harm... ? If it's not hurting you... its not your concern ?
Belief... isn't intrinsically "wrong"... as a matter of logic ? It can't be intrinsically falsified ? Science... does not have the tools... and will never have the tools... to determine if God exists, or not ? That is true... not because of the nature of God... but because of the nature of science... and its limited capacity... to observe only that which is observable... all and only within the rules that science applies to limit observation in science MORE than our ability to observe that exists without it.
Philosophy, and Belief... however... not limited in that way... including that they are not similarly limited and can observe that which science cannot... and can consider that which science cannot see... while also not abandoning reason... ? That adds value... which societies might codify as useful to survival... to teach our kids to help the next generation succeed... ?
And, while science can never answer the question about God existing or not... or, those about what existed before those things that science can observe, and where they came from... that does not mean that science cannot observe Belief... and determine what effects it has, and if it has social value, or not ?
Scientists Find One Source of Prayer’s Power: Communing with a higher power increases self-control
Note, again... like Newton and the apple... science didn't "invent" that ? It doesn't exist as an item in human behavior as an awareness adding value to our lives because of science... but, because of humans adopting "other ways" of seeing and considering the world... ?
I find little value in deliberate efforts to cut yourself off from the full range of human potential and experience... in order to quibble about semantic points in a branch of philosophy... whose entire purpose and structure makes it irrelevant to the question being considered ?
Science... is purposefully spotted at a point on the line in philosophy, between holism and reductionism / determinism, that is so far removed from having an ability to have a holistic view... that it really cannot have one... and still retain its function ?
I do understand that as the REASON that my discussion of sociobiology and gender... had me having to point out that advocates there were abandoning science in favor of pursuing "what ought to be" instead of "what is"... ?
But, when they do that... they're also abandoning basic standards of logic and reason... that do still apply in philosophy, as tests to determine validity, even when breaking the rules has moved you well outside of the realm of science ? If what they are doing is not science... when saying science must take a back seat to other imperatives... then what is it that they are doing... and what is the origin and basis of the moral authority being claimed ? |
