Which science majors have the fewest conservatives?

College Life
181

<p>“how not so? does that mean it is not valid to say “that santa claus exists is not a fact”?”</p>

<p>Depends on what you mean; the idea of Santa Claus exists, and that idea is translated into a physical existence in the minds of many children. Santa Claus is too much of a trivialization of the issue though…it’s the same thing as the whole dragon in the garage argument basically. Our idea of Santa Claus tells us that he lives at the north pole, that he flies around the world at Christmas with reindeer. We can actually attempt to observe these phenomena and come to the realization that it doesn’t happen. The ideas of Santa Claus/Dragon in garage are much more specific to the empirical world than the ideas of God/absolute morals; you could say the theory is much more well developed. The Christian God supposedly exists in Heaven, or even everywhere… how do we get to Heaven; how do we get everywhere?</p>

<p>I think the distinct issue here is that you are a verificationist ([Verificationism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism]Verificationism”>Verificationism - Wikipedia)) and are assuming that everyone else in the world is, or should be. While you might consider it you duty to make sure that everyone believes in verificationism; religious people might think the same of their religious beliefs.</p>

<p>“on the other hand, the idea of god/absolute morality/santa have been theorized—since forever, even—yet are still unable to find evidence to back them up.”</p>

<p>So?</p>

<p>“let’s see the case of autism-causing vaccines. studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that a link “exists” between vaccines and autism. is it outside the domain of science to say “no link exists between vaccines and autism”?”</p>

<p>Again, I think you mean the idea of a link exists…this is getting into rationalism though and leaving empiricism…not a good comparison. I suppose you could say “No link(idea) has been found”; not the same as “No link(idea) exists.” I may have to get back to this later when I have more time.</p>

<p>"this is how science works:
observation–>theory–>verification/falsification–>SCIENCE!</p>

<p>this is how god/absolute morality/any propositions without evidence work:
???–>theory–>faith–>PROFIT"</p>

<p>What was the point of this little outburst? You are comparing propositions to methods of knowledge acquisition? Not to mention just stating things without explanation.</p>

182

<p>"a person with a scientific mind would say … ‘no gods exist’ "</p>

<p>Yeah, right. Go tell that to [url=<a href=“http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Eric_Clapton.jpg]Him[/url”>http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Eric_Clapton.jpg]Him[/url</a>].</p>

183

<p>

how so? our idea of the christian god tells us that he answers prayers, once stopped the sun during joshua’s battle, placed a soul in each human mind, etc. (i do realize that different christians have different extents of empirical claims, but all of them do—if not, they would no longer be christians, but deists) we can actually attempt to observe these phenomena and come to the realization that it doesn’t happen.</p>

<p>and i can just say that santa lives in the north pole is such a primitive idea that only santa fundamentalists espouse… A True Santaist (not Satanist) knows that we cannot find where santa lives, yet we know he exists…</p>

<p>but this is getting into semantics. ‘fact’, ‘not found’, ‘exists’… i’m no philosopher, and i’m not discussing this. i’ll stop claiming anything about ‘fact’, ‘existence’, or whatever, since we’ll just keep arguing about more and more semantics.</p>

<p>but creationism, the theory that vaccines cause autism, ESP, astrology, alien abductions, absolute morality, god, and santa, are on equal grounds of validity, i.e. no evidence, but cannot be disproved.</p>

184

<p>

</p>

<p>pth, PLEASE respond to this. in my opinion this is the most important point of Sithis’ post.</p>

<p>how can you show that this idea is true via evidence and observation?</p>

<p>how can you support the idea that morality is dependent on each person with evidence and observation?</p>

<p>how do you support ‘in absence of empirical evidence, we should assume the thing doesn’t exist’ with evidence & observation? this contradicts what you said about the discovery of the electron by the way.</p>

185

<p>i’m not sure what that is, that’s why i didn’t answer…</p>

<p>i just have the idea that evidence (observation of reality) determines what is true (in accordance with fact or reality)… a tautology, really. see? it’s gonna degrade into semantics about ‘true’ and ‘fact’ again…</p>

<p>if determining whether something is true is not done through evidence/observation, then what? what is the point of saying something is ‘true’ if it is not in accordance with ‘reality’? how can something that doesn’t accord with ‘reality’ be ‘true’?</p>

<p>bloody semantics. go ask DEEPAK CHOPRA instead.</p>

186

<p>if you posit that things that can’t be verified aren’t worth thinking about, then that’s fine. but realize that you can’t verify that opinion. you too, like the theist, are making assumptions . . .</p>

<p>you also are being inconsistent. if you indeed have that opinion, i don’t think you can state one way or the other whether there is an absolute morality or not. you’d have to say that it’s a question that isn’t worth answering.</p>

<p>probably you do believe in some things that can’t be verified, though.</p>

187

<p>

i have never said this…</p>

<p>if, as you argue, everyone is making assumptions (i.e. believe in some things that cannot be verified), then do you think there is no such thing as fact? if verificationism/falsificationism/the scientific method are based on assumptions, is it no fact that the universe is 13.7 billion years old? is it no fact that electricity exists?</p>

<p>if there is such a thing as fact, what determines that fact, if not verificationism/falsificationism/the scientific method?</p>

<p>if there is no fact, and the scientific method is just as valid as theists’ assumption, why does it work so well? why have everything that has ever been explained, been explained by science? well of course, my answer is that if you ‘assume’ that what is ‘objectively observed to be true’ is ‘true’, you will not be wrong, because it is a tautology that what is ‘objectively observed to be true’ should be ‘true’.</p>

188

<p>What does any of this have to do with the thread’s original topic?</p>

189

<p>pth, first answer these questions:</p>

<p>how can you support the idea that morality is dependent on each person with evidence and observation?</p>

<p>how do you support ‘in absence of empirical evidence, we should assume the thing doesn’t exist’ with evidence & observation?</p>

190

<p>@Buddy
nothing. i’m just being stubborn and not going away because of my bloated ego despite already being bored to death responding to post after post.</p>

<p>@silence_kit
i asked first… no wait you did.</p>

191

<p>no, those are the same questions that i asked previously.</p>

192

<p>how can you support the idea that morality is dependent on each person with evidence and observation?
morality is a concept humans created. i think that is supported by evidence. it evolved with human civilization. if, as evidence suggests, morality is a human-created concept, then it is dependent on each person. now the claim that there is an independent morality is what needs to be supported with evidence. where is it?</p>

<p>how do you support ‘in absence of empirical evidence, we should assume the thing doesn’t exist’ with evidence & observation?
idk. because science works?</p>

<p>can you answer my questions now?</p>

<ol>
<li><p>if, as you argue, everyone is making assumptions (i.e. believe in some things that cannot be verified), then do you think there is no such thing as fact?</p></li>
<li><p>if verificationism/falsificationism/the scientific method are based on assumptions, is it no fact that the universe is 13.7 billion years old? is it no fact that electricity exists?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>3a. if there is such a thing as fact, what determines that fact, if not verificationism/falsificationism/the scientific method?</p>

<p>or</p>

<p>3b. if there is no fact, and the scientific method is just as valid as theists’ assumption, why does it work so well? why have everything that has ever been explained, been explained by science?</p>

<ol>
<li>now the claim that there is an independent morality is what needs to be supported with evidence. where is it?</li>
</ol>

193

<p>

</p>

<p>you have to start somewhere. i think that you can arrive at conclusions once you have a few assumptions. that’s what facts are. electricity & the age of the earth are facts once you have a few assumptions.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>i don’t think saying that the scientific method is just as valid as theists’ assumptions means anything. i think valid means ‘follows from the premises’. they are just different sets of assumptions. when deciding what assumptions to take i just pick the ones i like the most. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>lol this isn’t true. people study language, mathematics, philosophy, etc . . . and the conclusions they reach are important</p>

194

<p>

</p>

<p>how do you know that it wasn’t discovered instead of created? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>well, we only use the parts of the natural world that we think that we have good evidence for. if you only care about utility & not correctness, then you shouldn’t be making any assumptions about things that you can’t show are right or wrong one way or the other.</p>

<p>i think that you really need to come up with an answer for why you believe in this particular idea.</p>

195

<p>

</p>

<p>Because science attempts to answer only questions which it feasibly can answer. I believe in the principle of <em>doing what a task takes</em> - and if it is observational in nature, chances are a scientific approach is required.</p>

<p>Religious tenets can be formed through scientific observation too. In fact, I believe much of Christian philosophy could be rederived simply by stating the goal, and making an observation-based inquiry.</p>

<p>However, spoken in the language of logic, in order to have a formal system to manipulate, you need to give some preliminary assignment of meaning in some universe, which descends into the realm of philosophy.</p>

<p>Look pkmntrainer - I think if you mean to define absolute morality as necessarily something which a big guy from the clouds handed down, that’s just not the right definition. The real question of defining what an absolute morality would entail is tough.</p>

<p>But I can give one big hint - even if we choose to conceptualize the issues at stake differently (whether using Gods and hells or mythology or just plain scientific observation and our own experiences of happiness and sadness), an absolute morality would arrive at the same code of conduct. IF there is room for debate with how someone must live in a certain circumstance, then the morality should give a choice as to how that someone can live - but given you, pkmntrainer, find some “Happiness” to be the ultimate goal, the only sense in which one could argue there is no such absolute is by claiming “Happiness” cannot be defined meaningfully in any absolute sense.</p>

<p>Which, actually, I do not believe is clear at all. Yes, one person’s pleasure is another’s pain. But “Happiness” should be defined to be “that which is ultimately sought by all”, and nothing more, nothing less. It is multi-colored, it is a huge thing, it is why religions have had to go through such lengths, very likely, to create paradoxical, complicated figures of divinity.</p>

<p>Morality needn’t be the precise way one should act to every scenario, but a strong web of lifestyle and consequence, knowing which one cannot BS oneself as to how to live.</p>

196

<p>

</p>

<p>Seconded, much in fact :)</p>

197

<p>

</p>

<p>i don’t think it does . . . i don’t think it even could be said one way or the other by observing the world</p>

198

<p>

</p>

<p>Even the term “God” is human-created. So is all of mathematics. Or, you can say we discovered it. Sometimes I feel this is more a matter of attitude.</p>

<p>I do not believe morality being human-created implies the code of conduct need be dependent on each <em>individual</em> - it does imply that it depends a lot on humanity, however.</p>

<p>Let me add one important thing. Morality needs to account for the fact that there is such a thing as choice, anyway. Just because two people would act differently in a scenario doesn’t mean one of them has to be <em>wrong</em> - but I think the key is we should be able to say what is in fact wrong based on the characterization of “Happiness” given.</p>

199

<p>“how so? our idea of the christian god tells us that he answers prayers, once stopped the sun during joshua’s battle, placed a soul in each human mind, etc.”</p>

<p>What I mean is, it is easier to discuss empirically things that are supposed to happen in the present and that happen in the physical world i.e. Santa and Dragon. With prayers there
would be a problem of “act of God vs coincidence” (God doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere and say “Prayer granted” to take responsibility for the act),
nor does an unanswered prayer prove that God doesn’t exist empirically. Things that happened in the past are difficult to prove empirically. Also I don’t necessarily think it is safe to assume that every Bible story is 100% accurate. Souls…well we don’t need to get into theory of the mind; this discussion has become longwinded enough
as it is; I’m surprised this thread hasn’t been locked yet haha.</p>

<p>“but this is getting into semantics…”</p>

<p>Language and interpretation are an important part of philosophy if you have to use language to discuss our experiences and ideas.</p>

<p>“i’m no philosopher, and i’m not discussing this”</p>

<p>Philosophy includes metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, all of which are relevant to the discussions we have been having</p>

<p>“i’m not sure what that is, that’s why i didn’t answer…”</p>

<p>I gave you a link explaining it.</p>

<p>"i just have the idea that …observation of reality determines what is …in accordance with fact or reality… "</p>

<p>i.e. empiricism is the only valid epistemology, which is again, debatable.</p>

<p>“idk. because science works?”</p>

<p>That’s a pragmatic view, but that doens’t mean it is “The Truth.”</p>

<p>“1. if, as you argue, everyone is making assumptions (i.e. believe in some things that cannot be verified), then do you think there is no such thing as fact?”</p>

<p>I don’t know; I feel that is possibly debatable whether it is within human capacity to hold absolute facts about the universe. Many scientific theories/laws are based largely on the principles of logic;
and it cannot be said that it is impossible for all time that the principles of logic are false, for one example.</p>

<p>“if verificationism/falsificationism/the scientific method are based on assumptions, is it no fact that the universe is 13.7 billion years old? is it no fact that electricity exists?”</p>

<p>I don’t know; they are based on human understanding of the world, I suppose it could be said that electricity exists as defined by science, and if the methods used to determine the age of the universe are valid,
then the universe is 13.7 billion years old, whatever that means.</p>

<p>“3a. if there is such a thing as fact, what determines that fact, if not verificationism/falsificationism/the scientific method?”</p>

<p>This assumes that if there is Absolute Fact, that we are capable of determining it.</p>

<p>“3b. if there is no fact, and the scientific method is just as valid as theists’ assumption, why does it work so well?
why have everything that has ever been explained, been explained by science?”</p>

<p>I don’t think everything that has been explained has been 100% explained by science. Science has explained things adequately based on the criteria of science, no more.<br>
Science can make predictions with great probability, but not absolute certainty. Whether is works “well” is up for debate, depending on your definition of “well.”
Yes, I did just bring up semantics, sue me. And even if it can objectively be said to work well, this is irrelevant to determining Absolute Facts.</p>

<p>"4. now the claim that there is an independent morality is what needs to be supported with evidence. where is it? "
Was this an actual claim? I think we were mostly talking about the possibility of it exisiting and whether or not it can actually be refuted.</p>

<p>I think I rehashed a few things that silence_kit and mathboy98 have said (and they have good points besides the ones I have), I just wanted to use my own wording/method of thinking.</p>

200

<p>

</p>

<p>In fact, logic is a construct in a sense too. There are “laws” of logic which different individuals say we can reject and not reject. For instance, should we allow for the possibility that something can be true and not true at once, if it is for some reason not possible to intuit which option must be taken given our constraints? </p>

<p>The way I look at it, we arrive at meaningful results, namely some kind of understanding, when we specify what laws we’re working under. As to what is absolute fact, I can’t say so easily. In a sense, it really is what we define it to be, because it’s terminology. It is a question of philosophy to assess how successful the assignment of meaning to the terminology is, with regards to the human experience.</p>