Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18298)	7/16/2001 2:00:07 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Did it really take twenty minutes to write that? That comparison is nonsense, and I'm getting tired of hearing it. Accepted scientific definitions are based on observation and study. The process by which they are derived is open to study by anyone who cares to look at it and is able to understand it. These definitions exist because they have survived peer review and extensive challenges. If evidence emerges to support an alternative conclusion, the consensus definition changes. Reason was the only tool Descartes, Spinoza and Kant needed to arrive at a consensus God existed. Are you saying philosophy has arrived at an alternative conclusion? They wielded reason like a skilled fencer handles a sword. Few have skill in wielding or even holding that sword and if one lacks honesty it is impossible. Writing of course is a skill that anyone can learn the rudiments of. It may take faith to believe in Moses, Mohammed or Jesus but not God. There has been no new evidence to support a shift in this consensus and there never will be.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18298)	7/16/2001 11:57:28 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You continue to be in denial. You admit that we make all definitions, but then claim they are meaningful "because we have deciddd they are meaningful." What wonderful circular reasoning. You still don't address the questions I ask. Your go on and on about scientific process, but, of course, you belief in that ultimately rests on assumed but unprovable assumptions, just like religious people believe in assumed but unprovable assumptions. At least you have come far enough to admit that "no standard exists by which we can determine abstract "rightness"." Good. You are getting a bit closer to the truth here. Your belief in rightness is based on the same abstractions as others' belief in God. In the end, you continue to be in exactly the same situation as religionists. Your contend that your religion is based on science, but of course science itself is based on unprovable assumptions just as religious writings are. No matter how much you squirm, it comes down to the same thing. Whether what you believe in is God, or science, or moral rightness, it all starts from your accepting unprovable assumptions and proceeding from there. You may choose different things to believe in than Christians, or Jews, or Muslims do. But you are in the same place they are.