<Generic Greeting>

Forum Related Introduce Yourself
1

Hi all

I’m currently doing my honours degree in biochemistry, have been an avowed skeptic for roughly 12 years. That’s about it. I like to play Devil’s Advocate, so at times you may find that I root for the wrong team, but it’s all in the name of discourse and learning.

A recent facebook conversation I was part of, should give you an idea of what I’m like

Me
Now, I’m pretty sure there’s no god 'n all. But, there is a higher being controlling my playlist, cuz sometimes just the right songs are played in ‘random sequence’

•
•
o
Friend 1 You’re such a contradiction, S. :slight_smile:
o
Friend 2 What if it’s the combined disbelief of all athiests that gives God his power? That would be ironic.
o
Me By that logic the combined belief of all believers should remove God from existence.
o
Friend 3
LOL Disbelief giving God is power is not ironic but moronic LOL
Without bad there can not be good, without disbelief, there can not be belief…without darkness we would not know the light. Without Hate there can not be love, with out noise we would not appreciate the silence. Without shuffle the next song would not play, and arn’t you glad that if you only place the good mp3’s in a folder you never have a bad song …
o
Friend 2 ‎@ Stefan Not if belief is entirely impotent
o
Friend 1 It sometimes feels impotent…lol.
o
Me If belief is entirely impotent what is the point of disbelief? If belief in something did not accomplish anything, people wouldn’t find it necessary to disbelieve anything. If, through strict empirical testing, people found that belief in a higher power is completely irrelevant, meaningless etc, then ultimately, disbelief would have to argue the opposite, and the tables would turn.
o
Friend 1 Don’t argue with Stefan. His logic is king. I attempted it once, and actually came out on top, but I’m guessing that’s exactly what he wanted :wink: Haha!
o
Me Jayd, you have not met Justin yet. . .
o
Friend 1 Is he as good as you?
o
Friend 2
You ask, “If belief is entirely impotent what is the point of disbelief?” Surely disbelief is the consequence of an impotent belief. Let’s look at what impotent belief means for a moment. It refers to cases wherein belief is not justified, …See more
o
Me
Disbelief is a consequence of the perceived impotence of belief. If belief is shown to be impotent, the believer made aware of that, he doesn’t become a disbeliever. He just loses belief. (I’m contradicting my earlier statements I know, suc…See more
o
Friend 2
I was woried that Q3 was vague, but I was too lazy to clarify. Here goes. Demonstrating that something is true requires one hell of an airtight argument and irrefutable evidence–not easy to come by. To show that something is likely false r…See more
03 March at 23:51 • Like
o
Friend 1 Look at it like this: Disbelief in one theory is the belief in another. So belief is the same. What you believe is the variant. And doubt is not as extreme as disbelief. It’s a degree of, but not entirely, as doubt leaves room to either believe or not. I get the impression that although you both are of intelligent minds, you like taking a dump on philosophical ground without having any toilet paper with you.
o
Me
You can’t prove truth absolutely, only temporarily. I feel the scientific model of truth is probably the best one to apply. It’s true until proven false. With the vast amount of knowledge still hidden from us, it is impossible to know if a truth is absolute, only that it is the best explanation for a current set of parameters. Falsity on the other hand, does have absolutes. Yet at what point does false remain false and not truth? Can something false not be proven to be false by a piece of evidence introduced at a later stage? Maybe truth and falsity are misnomers, ultimately you only have explanations.
I’ll get to doubt and disbelief a bit later.
o
Friend 1 Please explain the science of soul!
o
Me We aren’t pretending any of this is philosophy, merely mental acrobatics. Something to pass the time, thought experiments, tid-bits to challenge our thinking, dispell preconceived ideas. Above all it’s just plain fun toying with an idea, seeing where you can go with it.
o
Friend 1 Only if you enjoy wading through all the bullshit to get to the point :slight_smile:
o
Me What does the science of the soul have anything to do with this? The point is discourse.
04 March at 15:14 • Like
o
Friend 1 You said science is applicable for truth. So I’m asking you a new question. Discourse sucks :wink:
o
Me No, I said the scientific model of truth is the best one. Difference. And answering that question is pointless, because you are stuck within one paradigm and won’t be able to understand any form of explanation I offer. Nor even consider it to be relevant because you already believe you know the truth concerning this issue.
o
Friend 1 Hahaha! I love how decide what my opinion is without me stating it.
o
Me
Thanks, took me a long time to get to the point where other people’s opinions are predictable. If you knew, or understood science enough you’d know that while there are tentative explanations to these type of questions, there is not enough known about the brain to actually answer that question satisfactorily. You believe the soul is something special, God-given that science won’t be able to explain because then somehow it takes away the beauty of being for you. You only ask that question when you know the other side won’t be able to answer it to your satisfaction and you can proudly jump up and say “Hah, science cannot know the truth” or “Science can’t explain everything” or variations thereof. It’s the same as me asking, “What does god say about the Michaelis-Menten kinetics for reversible enzyme reactions?” equally pointless because there exists no literature on the subject from a non-scientific point of view. The beauty with science is that, eventually we’ll figure this puzzle out. It may be that the soul is merely a function of consciousness, invented to have something that can still be held accountable after we die, to put the fear of the unknown or god into us. And ultimately it’s just a result of neurotransmitters and electrical signals pulsing back and forth at 14m/s in a system so complex it can calculate complex mathematical and physical problems on the fly, allow us to feel and give us language all at the same time. Or it could be something completely different

2

Hello and welcome Perestroika. Hope you have as much fun here as on Facebook. :slight_smile:

Mintaka

3

before you can discuss the “Science of the Soul” you have to establish empirically that souls exist. Otherwise you are just waffling and navel gazing - which can be fun if you are into that sort of thing I guess

oh and welcome :smiley:

4

Hello, and welcome!

Is that you playing devil’s advocate? Allow me, then, to play PITA pedant.

Resisting the strongest temptation to apply “It’s true until proven false” self-referentially, the rule applies only to scientific theories that are already held to be well-established or even just provisionally true. That is, there exists a body of good scientific evidence in support of the theory. In contrast, any new hypothesis that conflicts with or means to extend extant knowledge must be treated as if it were false until there is sufficient evidence to hand that supports it. This restriction cannot be taken to mean that one shouldn’t investigate, only that an unproven hypothesis cannot be invoked as a persuasive account of the phenomenon it purports to explain. In short, science deals with new hypotheses according to “It’s false until there’s sufficient reason to think it true.” It’s that pesky onus-of-proof deal without which the world would be a much gentler, soulful and more human place, according to the beliefs of certain quarters… ::slight_smile:

PITA pedant mode is now switched off. Hello, and welcome again! :slight_smile:

'Luthon64

5

I know full-well what scientific truth, theory and hypothesis mean thank-you.

For ease of conversation one tends to assume the other party knows what you mean. One doesn’t just go around spouting everything as truth without first investigating. Yes this happens, but not in science. Which is why I said the scientific model of truth and why no-one questioned me mentioning it.

Also, I mentioned that pesky little “at times” part. So no, in this case I wasn’t.

Sorry, the pedant in combination with the PITA is really evident and superfluous.

6

I’m really not much concerned with what you, as a scientist-in-training, know the meanings of, neither with what you assume, nor with what you deem evident and/or superfluous. This forum is much bigger than your apparent wish to squabble with me over something you likely have misinterpreted, perhaps as unwarranted criticism, baseless cavillery or nitpicky pedantry. There are several other participants and readers here. Need I really remind you how pervasive is scientific illiteracy in our country? Need I point out that when you make such unqualified assertions as the one I expanded on, you are in fact doing science quite a disservice by promoting among the general public a picture of it that is at best sorely deficient, and at worst an open invitation to call any old made-up thing “science” as long as it hasn’t been proved false? There’s a sound reason why popularisers of science almost invariably go to great pains when describing the principles along which science operates.

'Luthon64

7

Welcome, Perestroika.

Before diving in at the deep end, it’s always advisable to make sure there’s water in the pool. :wink:

8

I just don’t much see the point in treating the people here like idiots and as if they know nothing. I thought it enough that the model of acquiring truth remain implied. Not the actual concept thereof. Conversations tend to be tapered to your audience’s level of knowledge. In this case some friends of mine who aren’t the idiots you believe me to be. Thus I can assume that they know that scientists don’t just go around making things up and claiming they are true, but once things have been proven to be true (or as close to the truth as possible) they remain as such until evidence to the contrary arises. I assumed that people on this forum may enjoy not being treated like idiots. You’re obviously a rather clever fellow, but I wonder from where this need stems to constantly prove how much more you are than the rest of us. And yes, that sentence is correct as I wrote it.

Hermes, thank you.

I would like to counter though; “To boldly go where no man has gone before” :wink:

9

Please don’t start misrepresenting and distorting what I wrote. It does you no favours. It’s also a good idea to steer clear of reckless inferencing and wild conclusioneering.

'Luthon64

10

doef

Welcome Perestroika, do have some fun.

11

Some do not sink!! They walk across the pool.

Welcome!

12

You’ll be surprised! :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

Mintaka

13

Well, I’m an idiot, so please treat me accordingly.

14

Then you must be a clever idiot! What a novel idea! ;D

15

She is mate and she doesn’t have to prove it, most of us simply gets it :smiley: To be perfectly candid, I’d listen to her if I were you. I know I do.

Some advice if I may, don’t read condescension where there is none. Emotions is such a hard thing to determine via this medium, I am constantly surprised at my fellow surfers inane ability to accurately measure such. What without emoticons we would definitely have been completely lost.

As it is, is remains tricky and my suggestion is to limit projection as much as possible and look for content rather than anything else.