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

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:48:08 -0800, Einar wrote:

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.

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.

Science does have something to say on the questions you mentioned. I
have seen it myself. Feel free not to believe me if you wish, but
blindly jumping to the conclusion that the research does not exist simply
because you don't know about it only makes you look, well, like you
accuse others of looking for not believing in ghosts, with a large dollop
of hypocrisy thrown in extra.

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

I gather from your spelling that English is not your native language,
but you should learn that "opinion" and "data" are not synonyms.

--
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


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: 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 ... it is my opinion that both of those stances are absurd. ... you have taken opinions of scientists and made them into ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We have to respect the limits of human knowledge!
    ... There are different kinds of nonsense. ... Science has shown us that all claims of ghosts have more ... of the claims about ghosts violate well-established laws of physics. ... can it perceive the third spatial dimension. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pagano *still* refuses to understand how science works
    ... > claim that "Science in the United States is under attack by our own ... Shame on them for such rhetorical nonsense. ... > must do to falsify ID is find an event whose causal history is known ... > to be law-chance and also observe CSI. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A To E must cover the boundary between physics and metaphysics.
    ... entered into the activity thinking something is nonsense. ... then you don't want to do science. ... The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit. ... detectors from the exits to the slits an hour after the C-60 molecule ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)