Fox News Goes After Pope

  On 12/17/2013 at 1:02 AM, sheatheman said:

@Limpy

 

I have never been witnessed to by a muslim, since they don't really do that, but if I had a muslim friend who earnestly brought up my salvation in the eyes of Allah, it would cause me to think quite a bit.

What if I told you that you were living in affront to Poseidon?

I am Poseidon so that is impossible.

  On 12/17/2013 at 1:04 AM, LimpyLoo said:

What if I told you that you were living in affront to Poseidon?

@shea

i'm trying to think of an artful way to say "everybody projects nobody converses" without being an example of that statement

@owen

haha. the artful way is to live it.

You were right sheathe! I responded rashly. My apologies.

It's already been said, though I enjoy the mental machinations of choosing one path or another, that this argument will never change anyone's mind. Even if you understand sometime else's POV intellectually you will never agree with them. Your axioms are different. Nevertheless, I'll join in because I think it's fun.

Limpy I feel like you're being a bit unrealistic here, honestly. I am a big fan of skepticism and rigor. However I readily admit there is much I take on faith. News, science, medicine, the words of others. I assume rigor on the part of those I trust, even in situations where there isn't an easy way to prove that rigor. As much as I hated to admit it, faith is a part of my daily life. At some point, I let go and combined skepticism with whatever feels right to me. So far it's been a healthy collusion.

I've never been able to believe in a cohesive god-entity, but it is interesting for me to think about the universe and the connections therein creating some kind of superbeing. It's something that feels right to me, but probably sounds very intellectual and speculative to other people. I'm happy to accept that.

Sheathe, I'm not sure if you're trying to prove something here, but if you are I'm interested to know what it is. You're obviously a smart person.

Live well & do things you love. That's my religion, my little slice of things.

  On 12/17/2013 at 2:50 AM, A/D said:

Limpy I feel like you're being a bit unrealistic here, honestly. I am a big fan of skepticism and rigor. However I readily admit there is much I take on faith. News, science, medicine, the words of others. I assume rigor on the part of those I trust, even in situations where there isn't an easy way to prove that rigor. As much as I hated to admit it, faith is a part of my daily life. At some point, I let go and combined skepticism with whatever feels right to me. So far it's been a healthy collusion.

 

It is impossible for a skeptical person to learn everything firsthand. It would be impossible for me to go recreate the hundreds of thousands of experiments and discoveries that comprise our scientific understanding of the world. I tentatively accept the scientific canon as the best current model for explaining the observed phenomena of the universe. That is my "dogma." I do not accept anything as 100% true.

Now, the fact that I pragmatically have to trust in certain things to function in this world doesn't mean that I need to believe things with no evidence. The quotidian faith that you refer to is different than religious faith. I have faith that the world will come up tomorrow, I have faith that I'm actually living in this world and I'm not a brain in a vat or under some Descartian spell, I have faith that the ground won't collapse when I step on it, I have faith that my girlfriend won't stab me in my sleep, I have faith that I share the same language with the people around me and my orange is more-or-less their orange and we generally share the same meanings for words, I have faith in the logical absolutes, etc. But that is pragmatic faith. I don't believe them so much as I operate as if they're true for practical purposes, because otherwise I couldn't make plans or talk to people or use logic to evaluate things.That is pragmatic faith.

But that is different than believing that Zeus exists with no evidence. Why don't we just believe that unicorns and leprechauns exist? Why don't we believe every claim about everything?

i don't honestly believe that i am not a brain in a vat because that is just as likely as the alternative.

but then, my girlfriend is a philosopher and waxes on about this kind of thing on the reg so that probably doesn't help.

we r livin in teh matricks i m a human batry.

that said, i don't have a lot of "faith" in science, either, considering the history it has of serving racist, sexist, colonial interests. it's certainly getting better in that regard, but fuck me, people still take shit like evolutionary psychology seriously.

  On 12/17/2013 at 3:39 AM, disparaissant said:

that said, i don't have a lot of "faith" in science, either, considering the history it has of serving racist, sexist, colonial interests. it's certainly getting better in that regard, but fuck me, people still take shit like evolutionary psychology seriously.

Well hold on here.

Science is simply a method of learning about the universe. Something like Josef Mengele isn't a reason to distrust science, just as Charlie Manson isn't a reason to distrust Paul McCartney.

And what's wrong with evolutionary psychology? it is a sound concept in theory at least, regardless of how 'soft' it actually is.

i'm not criticizing the scientific method here, i'm just saying that i have no faith that those who actually do science don't have inherent biases that taint and tint the work they do. there's a difference between trusting the scientific method as being an alright way to view evidence and whatnot, and saying that you trust the "scientific canon" because to be blunt the scientific canon is riddled with inconsistencies and biases that actively harm and oppress entire groups of people.

and evolutionary psych is basically just the naturalistic fallacy as soft science. it's p bogus.

like don't get me wrong, i'm not saying the theory of gravity or relativity are bogus, i'm just saying that there are vast swathes of the scientific canon that are pretty obviously driven by biases and shitty thinking that are not particularly rigorous or objective in any way that have not yet been challenged in any meaningful way because either the current crop of scientists just don't give a shit and will happily go on being oppressive shitstains, or there just hasn't been time to get to that particular corner of the scientific sphere.

  On 12/17/2013 at 4:00 AM, disparaissant said:

i'm not criticizing the scientific method here, i'm just saying that i have no faith that those who actually do science don't have inherent biases that taint and tint the work they do. there's a difference between trusting the scientific method as being an alright way to view evidence and whatnot, and saying that you trust the "scientific canon" because to be blunt the scientific canon is riddled with inconsistencies and biases that actively harm and oppress entire groups of people.

 

and evolutionary psych is basically just the naturalistic fallacy as soft science. it's p bogus.

Formal structures are loaded even without any particular content. The fact that epistemology itself is a thing means that there is a debate between various sciences, which can only mean the multiple scientific methods have particular implications and interests.

ugh yeah i'm not even going that deep but it's a very fair point.

  On 12/17/2013 at 4:00 AM, disparaissant said:

i'm not criticizing the scientific method here, i'm just saying that i have no faith that those who actually do science don't have inherent biases that taint and tint the work they do. there's a difference between trusting the scientific method as being an alright way to view evidence and whatnot, and saying that you trust the "scientific canon" because to be blunt the scientific canon is riddled with inconsistencies and biases that actively harm and oppress entire groups of people.

 

and evolutionary psych is basically just the naturalistic fallacy as soft science. it's p bogus.

I do agree that there are some institutional biases (e.g. WEIRD). But on the whole I trust peer-review to perpetually give us a more-or-less decent model of the universe. And as I said, my trust/belief/practical-faith is tentative and not 100%.

And I think evolutionary psychology is more-or-less sound in its attempt to determine what sorts of personalities and behaviors might historically have been adaptive or maladaptive. And as for naturalistic fallacies: regardless of how the studies filter through pop psychology magazines and reach people like me, the pure science itself doesn't appear to suggest that what is natural or adaptive is necessarily good.

That is, I don't think the science exists to tell us how to behave. Rather I see the aim as being the same as with non-psychological evolutionary study.

I haven't read all the posts, but I would like to say that I'm not a fan of Pascal's wager. There are better reasons to believe in God than "what if it IS real?"

well okay i mean i guess i can see where you're coming from. i just think that, as far as biased, bullshit, fundamentally flawed and fucked up scientists go, evolutionary psychology is about as infected with them as that maggot cheese they eat in sardinia.

  On 12/17/2013 at 4:22 AM, disparaissant said:

well okay i mean i guess i can see where you're coming from. i just think that, as far as biased, bullshit, fundamentally flawed and fucked up scientists go, evolutionary psychology is about as infected with them as that maggot cheese they eat in sardinia.

eww lol

I actually think it was evolutionary psychology that made people realize that cooperating is more adaptive than being selfish. There was a long-standing idea that 'survival of the fittest' meant being strong and fast and mean and Machiavellian and shit. Like Patrick Bateman or something. I think it might've been evolutionary psychology that really demonstrated how being nice and generous could make you 'fitter' than the strong selfish type. Although I'm sure the idea was kicking around long before.

wait, so it's ok now to say things around here like that scientists can be biased or even co-opted and that even the scientific method/peer review process won't necessarily stop something like bad or even 'immoral' science from oppressing people? oh wait thats right, im a total moron. when i said it, it was wrong.

stopped clock, etc.

broken clock. of course. also, around here, who is actually saying something is more important than what they are saying.

not necessarily, but how they frame it is certainly important. you tend to frame everything you say in an absolutely ridiculous front of left-bashing and bad logic. it makes it hard to take anything you say seriously. maybe work on that. then you won't be so surprised when people overlook the one-in-a-million salient point you throw out there.

to my perception its more of a tendency of people to deny that somehow anything to do with 'left wing' may have anything to do with... anything, and there being absolutely no hesitation to tie this or that in with 'right wing'. the only reason why the things i say seem more dickish is because the direction i'm leaning is the minority around here. the title of this thread itself is clearly a nod to how the the right wing is going after this pope. there were comments on the first page reinforcing that. when i made my post bringing left wing into it, i wasn't the first one bringing politics into the topic. also it should be clear to anyone why i would bring 'left wingers' into the topic, since the pope's popularity is more with left wing types. it's why he's getting person of the year. because he's supposedly 'progressive', which everyone knows means more 'liberal' or 'left wing'. and the fact of the mentioned opposition he's getting from some right wing types only reinforces all that further.

so it's pretty absurd when i make my statement mentioning left wing, which is who this pope is so popular with, that all these people post in reply, acting like it's totally insane that i would do that. there was nothing at all out of the ordinary, unusual, or anything less than totally logical, about why i would make statements like that. they just weren't popular so they got the chewbacca defense and ad hominems. never in my life have i seen a bunch of people who will go from talking about things that are related to politics and society, to acting like it's absolutely random and bizarre that you would do the same (or resorting to childish name calling) but only from a different view point. it's pretty enlightening actually.

however i might agree w/you that i'm a bit of a doof because my posts like that are always long winded. so i might try to work on that a bit. starting with this one... look only 2 1/2 paragraphs!

i think w/r/t this thread, people reacted the way they did to you for two reasons:

1.) you invariably make it about left vs. right, in every thread. so maybe it wasn't fair in this case but forgive us our tresspasses, for you do that shit a lot. like all the time. it's very silly.

2.) the shit you said to start with in this thread was so absurdly wrong that it was mind-boggling. so much so that it's hard to know where to even begin with it. that wrong.

so in short, you have a point regarding the left vs right thing. but the vast majority of the times i have seen you post stuff, you come out of nowhere and attempt to make a divisive left vs right argument that characterizes anyone who disagrees with you as a buffoon simply for having "leftist" opinions.

i guess in short what i am saying is that he who smoketh the crack must abstain from throwing rocks.

and yeah i am fully aware that i am a total ass sometimes, but who isn't? believe it or not i try to catch myself. i mean i think my mind is open to SOME degree. but anyway ignore these posts i dont mean to derail the jesus+science stuff, which atm i don't feel like i have anything to contribute to.

except to say that this is probably all a simulation and if it is jesus couldve totally been real and actually walked on water and all that, and the earth really then could be only a few grand yrs old. but carry on

fair enough

i, for one, believe that we are all secretly living in ancient rome during the persecution of the christians and this is all an illusion.