Re: We have to respect the limits of human knowledge!

On Dec 2, 12:14 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:46:13 -0800, Einar wrote:
On Dec 1, 9:15 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
There are different kinds of nonsense. The kind you nonsense you are
apparently referring to is an idea that leads to known falsehoods.
Another kind of nonsense, however, is an idea that decreases the
quality of your life, whether or not it is false. I could probably make
a case that a willfully and persistently practicing gullibility falls
under the latter form of nonsense, and I suspect the "faith" you refer to
is not easily distinguishable from gullibility.

A useful faith is never the basis for any system. Rather, it is what
lies outside any system. This is as true of religious systems as it is
of science systems. A Christian, for example, does not show faith until
s/he becomes comfortable exploring non-Christian ideas.

Well, I have not seen ghosts, or observed any proof for life after
death, or for that for multible after lifes...but does that mean that
they can´t possibly be true irrespectivelly of the share lack of
supporting data?

Of course not. Any scientist would tell you that.

I really can´t see that there is anything in science
whatsoever at the present time which does shed any light on this,

Then you are so wholly ignorant of science that you should not be
discussing it. Science has shown us that all claims of ghosts have more
mundane explanations (like suggestability and cold drafts), and that many
of the claims about ghosts violate well-established laws of physics.
Likewise for life after death. That doesn't rule out the possibilities
entirely, but it sure as hell does shed light on them.

So, beleive or non-believe in such things, IMO, is simply ones
opinion,,,full stop. I have chosen to take no strong stance on
questions which can´t be verified which either way.

Not true. You have taken two very strong stances on those questions:
First, that a less-than-one-in-a-billion chance of something being true
means "can't be verified either way," and so both true and false should
be given equal weight. And second, that dismissing the nearly impossible
because it is not absolutely impossible is "simply one's opinion."
Well, it is my opinion that both of those stances are absurd.

Gullible,,,can be a pretty darn charged word, and should be used with
care, unless one has some standing in actual data to support that view
of another. You may, on the other hand, have the personal view that
believe in such things is some aspect of being gullible, but without
any scientific data which either way that will only be your opinion.

Yes, I used the word "gullible" with care. It is the right word.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

LOL, you have taken opinions of scientists and made them into
counterproofs, which is grossly overstating things. On the contrary,
there is no way to put probabilities like you sort of pull out of you
hat on these questions. Ghosts, well it´s really absurd to suggest
that science has in any manner whatsoever created a proof for theyr
non-existence.

Assertions don´t make a fact, even though they are made by respected
scientists. As things stand, it really is the way I said it is,
namelly that science has nothing to say on these questions I
mentioned.

Like I said, it´s really only is an opinion. You may not like it, but
that´s not my problem.

Einar

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> You may have a right to your opinion. ... >>> Scientists are very good at interpreting the data they collect. ... >>> But science is correct when it talks about missing data. ... What is your faith based ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gore film - court judgement.
    ... totalitarianism is nonsense, ... will quickly turn away from government dictact and back to individual ... I think abelard's view that science and logic will drive out opinion ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism
    ... >> Scientists take a great deal of interest in speculative theorizing. ... > how science operates. ... metaphysics, in my opinion. ... there are some universals, but universals do not have the kind of ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: We have to respect the limits of human knowledge!
    ... There are different kinds of nonsense. ... Then you are so wholly ignorant of science that you should not be ... of the claims about ghosts violate well-established laws of physics. ... it is my opinion that both of those stances are absurd. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: NBC - What? Whered Keith Olbermann go?
    ... It's not opinion whether or not most economists say that the stimulus worked; ... I asked here several times to present me with 10 scientists with at least a master's degree who were NOT funded by big oil, who say that climate change is not occurring. ... And please present me with a mainstream media source for validity of this so-called petition. ... In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind." ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)