or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › understanding and using correct terminology
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

understanding and using correct terminology - Page 6

post #201 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
When you understand it should be sufficient.

I understand it, too bad only one of us does, though.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #202 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I thought we were discussing evolution and the use of the words surrounding it here. Is this a transparent attempt to re-direct the discussion into something we're not talking about? Sure looks like it.

Wrong again. I think it would be illustrative for yourself to seek out evidence to what you have assumed to be true all along...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #203 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Wrong again.

No, we were not discussing the Bible. That is not what the thread started about, or has generally proceeded with except for folks that want to use it as a straw man, misdirection, distraction and what not.
post #204 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No, we were not discussing the Bible. That is not what the thread started about, or has generally proceeded with except for folks that want to use it as a straw man, misdirection, distraction and what not.

Look, if it was a distraction, it worked... point being, I did not intend for you to reply in this thread or elsewhere, because honestly, I don't think you can find anywhere in Genesis, the old testament or the new where it says that god is not an invention of man... and the reason for that is that it would be a lie...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #205 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I would definitely agree with you if the decision was what you say here. If a religious person isn't allowed to say 2+2=4 because they may think religious thoughts while saying it, that would be wrong. But I think you're reading this ruling incorrectly. They didn't say that those dumb Georgians think bad thoughts and therefore they can't have this sticker. They said that creationism is religion, and this sticker, by singling out evolution for a warning, promoted creationism.

The effects judgement was clear. It stated that certain parties would feel like insiders and outsiders based off the actual factual statement of the sticker. The sticker had no religious statement and in no way promoted religion. It was based off WHO would be shown to have won or lost the political fight, who would feel like an insider or outsider based off the factual language and what it meant in code and tactics to creationists.

I just don't see why you can't see that BRussell. The court clearly put this under the effects part of the decision. They clearly put that the effect was how parties in the community implicitly understood the sticker.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #206 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
I don't mean catholic orthodoxy at all: during the Renaissance period, the schism between religion and philosophy has not taken root; even with Descartes, the schism takes time to take root before the division of religion and philosophy, and philosophy from science takes place. The narrow branches of truth which science as a separate discipline holds, in comparison to the Renaissance goals of 'whole knowledge', culminating from each separate discipline (philosophy, science, religion etc) is something alien to modern man.

The Aristotelian worldview had nothing to do with the church's position, and from what I read, it appears anti-thetical to many Christian thinkers. Since Aquinas, Aristotelian perspectives were incarcerated as church doctrine, and that secularity of the church led to the maltreatment of both Copernicus and Galileo.

The Aristotelian worldview dominated occidental culture for centuries; even in the church it was the an article of faith, and this suited Europe: with man centred on the centre of the universe, it gave him a certainty: a geocentric delusion of self-importance. That false idea was the convention and the conformity which Europe subscribed to.

Granted that it wasn't provisional: the church went as far to take exception as we know. The problem of a model of 'testing' and 'accepting', is that the contingent 'factity' amounts to a 'hypotheses' basis for accepting 'facts'. A theoretical basis along the lines of an empiricial science is absolutely fine; however the unverifiable is not the domain of science. In Popper's critique, I would second that it is man's arrogance to believe then in a hypothesis or theory as a 'fact' which cannot be refuted.

My hesitation in calling something like 'evolution' or 'creation' a 'fact' is that it is unverifiable; and open to non-scientific discourse, rather than an illusion of empirically verifiable scientific operation.

**Darth Vader voice**

Impressive. Most Impressive.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #207 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
My hesitation in calling something like 'evolution' or 'creation' a 'fact' is that it is unverifiable...

Out of curiosity...what is the window of time that you would be willing to give to determine whether something is or isn't verifiable?
post #208 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
It was, according to the science of its day - stretching from classical antiquity right up to the Renaissance, and insisting further even after the Enlightenment. Astronomers validated the model of the Aristotelian solar system using naked eye observations and whatever they had at their means.

In several centuries time, the scientist of the future may look back at us and see how primitive (and arrogant) our science today is: thinking we have knowledge when all we have is certainty, regardless of its 'factity'.

I guess I missed this reply as the tiff with Chris began...

The theories that have been atributed to Aristotle, were used as a framework to explain results, rather than questioned... That is, a simple experiment, say dropping a ball off the mast of a moving ship and observing its action, would have put a serious dent into what Aristotle had proposed. The reason this experiment was never done, was not only because there weren't people concieving such a naturalistic description of the world, but also that Aristotle was looked upon as the greatest thinker of all time, and he couldn't be wrong.

Modern science didn't necessarily begin with Galileo, but he epitomized the goals of the movement, starting with the concept that descriptions of worldly events that are challenged come out stronger, that truely legitimate descriptions, those that approach absolute certainty, can only arise if they are questioned. Ultimately, this view was struck in a different tone: All scientific theories must be testable.

Aristotle's theories were never cast in such a doubtful light. If he suggested that the ball falling from the mast on a moving ship should fall straight down, it must be so, and all evidence to the contrary was an accident of nature, or something...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #209 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The effects judgement was clear. It stated that certain parties would feel like insiders and outsiders based off the actual factual statement of the sticker. The sticker had no religious statement and in no way promoted religion. It was based off WHO would be shown to have won or lost the political fight, who would feel like an insider or outsider based off the factual language and what it meant in code and tactics to creationists.

I just don't see why you can't see that BRussell. The court clearly put this under the effects part of the decision. They clearly put that the effect was how parties in the community implicitly understood the sticker.

Nick

Here's really the key point where I disagree with you: You say "the sticker had no religious statement and in no way promoted religion." But my argument is that the anti-evolution view in the warning label is a purely religious view. The court simply said that everyone (or a reasonable person) knows it's a purely religious view, and so everyone would see that it's a promotion of religion. It wouldn't sneak by unnoticed.

Here's a passage from the decision that I believe confirms my view:
Quote:
While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, this sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community for the benefit of the religious alternatives. By denigrating evolution, the School Board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories. (p. 36)

You're saying the sticker is neutral but the only thing the court found wrong with it is that it's associated with religious people. I honestly don't think that's what the court said. If they did, I'm not sure I agree with their reasoning, and I'm probably on your side. Obviously just because a viewpoint happens to coincide with a religious group doesn't mean it violates the First Amendment, even if other people know it coincides with those religious people. It's the content that should matter, and I think that's what the court was saying. I admit I haven't read the full decision, nor am I a constitutional lawyer even if I had read the whole thing. But I think they went beyond what you're ascribing to it.
post #210 of 334
Hi guys,

Quote:
Out of curiosity...what is the window of time that you would be willing to give to determine whether something is or isn't verifiable?

Can [chronological] time alone change data into verifiable 'fact'?

In that window of time, there are 'chance events'. For the scientist, millions of chance events may lead to a probable finding, admissible as empirical evidence.

For the philosopher, distinction between verifiability and unverifiability is critical: any scientist overstepping that line should be shot for his lack of discipline: when the scientist fails to see he is attempting to impute something in the name of 'science', he is not only unscientific, but offering scientific 'rhetoric' as a defense is intellectual dishonesty.

We need to differentiate between 'verifiability' as a useful tool, and between [hypothesis + empirical data + deduction] the scientist' method . I've said elsewhere than 'inference' is a science, although not an empirical science but a hermeneutic science. Does Popper see time as an antidote to the unverifiable? My understanding of the unverifiable is that, whatever you do, day time or night time, one million years later, it remains unverifiable: there is no data on the question of its verifiability which can support its transmutation from unverifiable to verifiable. It is unverifiable in essence. This is not the same as a layman's understanding of "I cannot verify this at this moment, but I can later".

One way to start, is to consider whether asking: "where does the world come from?" or "How come man exists??' is a philosophical or a scientific question, historical question, or religious question.

I guess the scientist and the philosopher don't always see eye to eye in this respect.....as far as the origin of the world or man is concerned, the philosopher is likely to argue that the scientist is overstepping the limits where science can inform him of any 'truth' from his own scientific method.

I'm thinking that Thomas' Kuhn's 'The Structure of scientific revolutions' is an indispensible guide to anyone seeking to understand where the modern bias of man's limitations lies.
post #211 of 334
Justin,
You are mostly correct... The major issue at hand is that predictions like contained within evolution, or some really really slow quantum events take huge amounts of time to observe; perhaps even longer than human existance.

What cannot be verified by direct observation of the event, can be deduced from many observations at one time... That is everything we observe about Nature now fits best with evolutionary theory... that is not to say when direct observations become available that this theory will be further proven, but rather that it is the leading theoretical candidate given all that exists now.

As far as knowing the origins of man and earth, we can reasonably proppose how planets form by looking outward from our solar system and observing the birth of planets in other systems, but man is another question, and so too is the universe, as such events are singular by definition. I, as a scientist, do not accept big bang theory as a description of the origin of the universe because it is not science... and what little has been confirmed of it could be explained in many many many different ways; but I am also perfectly willing to admit that I am a rarity among the scientific community. However, I use as evidence against such "scientific" descriptions of the origin of the universe, that the big bang theory is very much a derivative on Genesis, and originated with a monk. A few years ago, an Indian group proposed an alternate theory of the origin of the universe, and irony upon ironies they thought the universe creation/distruction was cyclical, as in the karmic rebirth...

Regardless, things beyond recorded history are only discoverable if reminants of their existence remain, and that is our limitation to understand all that came before.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #212 of 334
Quote:
What cannot be verified by direct observation of the event, can be deduced from many observations at one time... That is everything we observe about Nature now fits best with evolutionary theory... that is not to say when direct observations become available that this theory will be further proven, but rather that it is the leading theoretical candidate given all that exists now.

there is no difficulty with this; however, the model of deduction which you are proposing, is almost too narrow to be even useful for an observing scientist.

The real challenge is making an 'inference' which is robust and valid. Everything we observe about Nature fits according to the spectacles that we employ to observe. Again, inference: one observes; one deduces from the observations: there are no difficulties with this.

The extensive extrapolation, and quantum fantasy of hope in 'a long enough' time frame to support a hypothesis is worrying: here, the facts have already been confounded by a presupposition that it is necessary to have a longer time scale, in order for the observations to make sense.

We are no different from Aristotle in this respect: bending the data to 'fit' our model of the earth.

Your points are valid, as they take place within a scientific framework: the question however - of origin - it needs unpacking before it is embraced as a scientific question, and again, I'll ask: is this a scientific question? A philosophical one? A religious question? A historical question? A nonsensical one? Which perspective, and which take will man take to answer on what encroaches into unverifiability?

The transition from data to the scientist's unconcious myth about the universe is what a philosopher would guard against. It's interesting to see how the Indian group came up with a thesis {hypothesis] to support their own unconscious myth about the universe too.

Regards.
post #213 of 334
Justin et al.

I wold alos add that a good hypothesis/theory allow you to make predictions, not just fit the current data to teh model. As such Darwin's hypothesis has done remarkably well.
post #214 of 334
Finally found some time to respond.

Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
[B]The Aristotelian worldview had nothing to do with the church's position, and from what I read, it appears anti-thetical to many Christian thinkers. Since Aquinas, Aristotelian perspectives were incarcerated as church doctrine, and that secularity of the church led to the maltreatment of both Copernicus and Galileo.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by their being "incarcerated" as Church doctrine, which would suggest that the split(s) that you're saying didn't/couldn't happen were indeed in place. Similarly, while I see what you mean about the secularity of the church resulting in its inquisitiveness (har har), but to my mind, there's no distinction between the Church as a secular instrument and its existence as a religious institution. I tend to think of the Church in the Renaissance as simply an institution that is at once religious and political in nature, and once its structures are invested in certain positions, it has a stake in halting anything that threatens those structures. Thus, it doesn't really matter whether it's the church being secular or religiousthe institution is threatened.

Quote:
The Aristotelian worldview dominated occidental culture for centuries; even in the church it was the an article of faith, and this suited Europe: with man centred on the centre of the universe, it gave him a certainty: a geocentric delusion of self-importance. That false idea was the convention and the conformity which Europe subscribed to.

Right. And this man-centeredness is both a theological, philosophical, and a political position, no? But I take your point, about the structure of scientific change, which I'll disucss later.

Quote:
My hesitation in calling something like 'evolution' or 'creation' a 'fact' is that it is unverifiable; and open to non-scientific discourse, rather than an illusion of empirically verifiable scientific operation.

Fair enough.

As for scientific change and Kuhn...It's been a while since I've read him. Are you suggesting that ID is a kind of discursive rupture in the sciences? That is, that science will come to see itself as increasingly unable to explain ideas and conclude that the supernatural must be at work? Don't Kuhn's ideas suggest that teh discursive movement is away from such things, not towards them? Or does it even matter which "direction" we go, since it's all relative and consenus in conformity and all that? At any rate, it's all so much de Man's whirligig, again, whether it's texts and texts and texts or discoursive or consensus in conformity.

If "facts" in the scientific sense are only ever provisional, and if "facts" in the philosophical sense are only ever relative, we're locked into one of those always already moments of Derrida's, aren't we? And the end of the ride isn't a return to the supernatural; it's meaninglessness or word games or mental masturbation.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #215 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Finally found some time to respond.

I envy you -- this Christmas Crunch is getting in the way of my posting.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #216 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I envy you -- this Christmas Crunch is getting in the way of my posting.

Don't envy too much. This is the calm before the storm for me. I'm gonna be a ghost from tomorrow through the 22nd.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #217 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
Can [chronological] time alone change data into verifiable 'fact'?

I say so, if more data becomes available during that time.
post #218 of 334
Wow. This thread is still going? It's pass my bedtime.....a few quick posts then.


Quote:
Can [chronological] time alone change data into verifiable 'fact'?

XX:
Quote:
I say so, if more data becomes available during that time.

This wasn't a trick question. Differentiate a necessary condition from a sufficient condition: time is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition (this is also in your response).
post #219 of 334
Quote:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by their being "incarcerated" as Church doctrine, which would suggest that the split(s) that you're saying didn't/couldn't happen were indeed in place.

Aristotelian philosophy had much to contribute to christian philosophy; medieval Aristotelianism is a different version than Renaissance Aristotelianism; by the Renaissance, Aristotlian ethics were sufficient to limit even the influence of St Thomas/Aquinas' own work.

Commentators like Etienne Gilson (Renaissance philosophy) emphasizes how Aristotelianism principles became monolithic in its influence through the church; without biblical commentary offering a specific 'Christian Philosophy', Aristotle was the next best thing [most fundamentalists might counter objection to Christian Philosophy: what need is there in a source beyond the bible?]. Aristotelianism, like Ptolemy's own universe, could have died the death that a 'scientific revolution' incurs when a scientific novella strikes, as Kuhn argues. The Roman church allied with secular Aristotelian critics had embraced Aristotelianism: yet history books show us that it held on too long - despite itself. That aspect, has more to do with the zeitgeist, and the cultural myopia.

Quote:
Right. And this man-centeredness is both a theological, philosophical, and a political position, no? But I take your point, about the structure of scientific change, which I'll disucss later.

The first premise is false (from my limited understanding of Renaissance Christian ideas); the second has not yet taken place until the advent of the 'God is dead' squad - Nietzsche, 19th Century rise of 'psychological-centred man' and romanticism , and the third I'm way to inexperienced in the field to know the difference between yes and no. Ptolemy's universe was as bizarre as Aristotle's:

http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/.../ptolemaic.htm

Renaissance Europe inherited this model: there is nothing specifically theological about this - if anything, Mount Olympus is missing from the Ptolemian model. Neither Aristotle nor Ptolemy knew of Christ: Christianity had centuries yet to even begin.

Secular and religious people both held that model: Galileo's conviction of truth pits [method + observations] against [historical antecedent]. The church [its political side], as a bastion of [authority] defend the tradition of Aristotelian philosophy. Perhaps this is the political side of the institution which you see and refer to. I really don't know enough about political positions. The grumpy mean looking leading of the British conservative party just looked a lot younger in today's papers so I guess British politics is doing that revolution thing again....


Quote:
As for scientific change and Kuhn...It's been a while since I've read him. Are you suggesting that ID is a kind of discursive rupture in the sciences? That is, that science will come to see itself as increasingly unable to explain ideas and conclude that the supernatural must be at work? Don't Kuhn's ideas suggest that teh discursive movement is away from such things, not towards them? Or does it even matter which "direction" we go, since it's all relative and consenus in conformity and all that? At any rate, it's all so much de Man's whirligig, again, whether it's texts and texts and texts or discoursive or consensus in conformity.

Kuhn:
Quote:
The more carefully they study, say, Aristotelian dynamics, phlogistic chemistry, or caloric thermodynamics, the more certain they feel that those once current laws of nature were, as a whole, neither less scientific nor more the product of human idiosyncrasy than those current today. If these out-of-date beliefs are to be called myths, then myths can be produced by the same sorts of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to be scientific knowledge."

And this is only from page 2 - Kuhn hasn't even warmed up yet

What is ID? I read Id, but I know you don't mean Freud, at least not consciously. I'm not suggesting that science will ever see itself as unable to explain ideas: on the contrary - the hegemony it holds in modern technological society is likely to hand world-view over to the scientist in a self-inflating blindness, chasing the Comtean ideal despite being old-fashioned as an ideology. That is, science can explain everything. You, me, bacteria on the toilet seat, and the universe. The foreclosure of alternative heuristics due to the dominance of the scientific perspective is one foreseeable concern.

For science to accept that it has limits in its explanatory power - because of its own limited heuristic - that is not the realm of science - isn't that the job of the cultural critic or the philosopher.

A return to the 'supernatural' explanation is frightful for the modern scientist; there is no going back before the schism and speciation of knowledge into disciplines. One way which Ricoeur demonstrates, is an inter-dialogic relationship between different disciplines; bringing sciences together to share and understand perspectives; for instance; history and philosophy; psychoanalysis and philosophy and so on. We could try and find out more about other disciplines, beyond our own. The world might be a more interesting place then.

Quote:
If "facts" in the scientific sense are only ever provisional, and if "facts" in the philosophical sense are only ever relative, we're locked into one of those always already moments of Derrida's, aren't we? And the end of the ride isn't a return to the supernatural; it's meaninglessness or word games or mental masturbation.

Scientific sense tends not to be provisional; it tends to be valid in terms of being sensitive (able to detect an issue) and specific (detecting the right issue). Philosophically, validity rests on valid premises and valid consequences in relation to those premises. The rules of logic in both philosophy and science are similar when it comes to 'deduction'. When a scientist uses 'inference' and tries to dress it up as 'deduction' in a scientific model,or if he proclaimed he found the 'origin' of life, don't expect a philosopher to sit back in an armchair.

God knows. Just because one of the great minds, Derrida died, every man knows that masturbation didn't die with him. Word games are interesting, but Sudoku is the latest fad (logic by numbers). When confronted with a terrifying return to a sceptical position, of not being able to verify 'knowing', denouncing every other heuristic or explanation is not going to be the most intellectually honest stance. Derrida's deconstruction seems to hark back to a Pyrrhonic victory however we must've forget the context; Derrida's dead-end is already the limit-field of that discipline's horizon. Philosophy, divorced from science; science divorced from humanities - all the various paths don't necessarily lead to dead-ends if there is a fusion of horizons of different disciplines: an intercourse between disciplines; more specifically - discourse.

I guess that's what we're doing on this forum - discoursing. Not mental masturbation, as some of the more lazy members reading this might be thinking
post #220 of 334
Great post, Justin.

The problem is twofold here -- maybe threefold, in that there is a crispy coating of brute force and epistemological unconsciousness to chip through before we could even attempt what you're saying. Materialism's hegemony, can't have been kind as far as how it has policed itself. Once the hegemony breaks, I think we are going to find abuses that will rival the animatronic Christs found in some churches during the Reformation. At the same time, there are way too many who flat-out refuse to see the Materialistic roots in studies such as Psychology.

When you said:
Quote:
Scientific sense tends not to be provisional; it tends to be valid in terms of being sensitive (able to detect an issue) and specific (detecting the right issue). Philosophically, validity rests on valid premises and valid consequences in relation to those premises. The rules of logic in both philosophy and science are similar when it comes to 'deduction'. When a scientist uses 'inference' and tries to dress it up as 'deduction' in a scientific model,or if he proclaimed he found the 'origin' of life, don't expect a philosopher to sit back in an armchair.

..it's great, but don't you think that, even if 'Scientific' Materialism can be forthright enough see itself as a philosophy/religion -- let alone correlate itself to Kant, etc. -- it is barely possible to have the dialogue you propose? Isn't this the nature of Materialism, to have that 'deduction' option once you throw open the door to ultimate contingency?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #221 of 334
you know dmz, your posts are filled with assumptions...

Everything past Materialism's hegemony... is meaningless.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #222 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
At the same time, there are way too many who flat-out refuse to see the Materialistic roots in studies such as Psychology.

I'd still like to hear you explain how psychology is materialistic.
post #223 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
What is ID? I read Id, but I know you don't mean Freud, at least not consciously.

Are you serious (it's difficult to tell, sometimes)? This thread exists because of the current American "debate" over intelligent design, whose proponents argue that many biological structures are simply too complex to have evolved without the influence of a "designer."

No time to deal with the rest of the post at the moment.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #224 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Here's really the key point where I disagree with you: You say "the sticker had no religious statement and in no way promoted religion." But my argument is that the anti-evolution view in the warning label is a purely religious view. The court simply said that everyone (or a reasonable person) knows it's a purely religious view, and so everyone would see that it's a promotion of religion. It wouldn't sneak by unnoticed.

That is a logical leap that both you and the court appear willing to make. You cannot say that simply because you are against one thing, you must automatically be for something else. That is exactly what a reasonable person should not be doing.

You can do this though with intent and that is why it is dangerous. You can say if you are against affirmative action, you must be racist. That is the whole problem. It allows slipperty slopes.


Quote:
Here's a passage from the decision that I believe confirms my view:

While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, this sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community for the benefit of the religious alternatives. By denigrating evolution, the School Board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories.

Again you have to look at how it misleads. The only way it can mislead is within the context of the community. Saying evolution is a theory is not misleading. It is only misleading when you add "and the changing of the definition of the word theory is the mechanism by which creationist fight the view of evolution." No one is telling a person they have to accept the definition of creationists for evolution. The court believes that given the historical context of the community, they will believe the creationist definition and thus the theory is undermined. But those leaps are not what the law should be about or endorse. As quoted it is not an actual action, but gives the "appears to endorse."

Man, BRussell, we are so close on this. How can you honestly say that when words give an "appearance" instead of an actual action, it can honestly be about something beyond the community intent? It even notes that it does not reference any other theory.

Quote:
You're saying the sticker is neutral but the only thing the court found wrong with it is that it's associated with religious people.

No I didn't say the court found it wrong for being associated with religious people. The court ruled that actions arising from the concerns religious people are permissable. Here is the language again...

Quote:
Adopted by the schoolboard, funded from the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissable message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others that they are political insiders.

It is what the sticker tells people that is not acceptable. It doesn't tell them this in any explicit manner. It is about appearance and the thoughts of people while reading that sticker. The reason there is an appearance is because certain langauge is used by creationist in arguing against evolution and the sticker contains those words. Yet the words cannot side with creationists unless the court knows you will read the sticker and use the creationist definition of the word while reading it. The court determined that a reasonable observer would know that parties in the community would do this and feel like insiders or outsiders.

The court is saying that the right word is not permissable because we know you are going to think the wrong definition and fell like an insider. That is thought control.

Quote:
Obviously just because a viewpoint happens to coincide with a religious group doesn't mean it violates the First Amendment, even if other people know it coincides with those religious people.

It isn't even the viewpoint. It is the fact that certain parties have appropriated certain language and it means that objective use of that language now shows subjective agreement with that party.

That is scary.

Quote:
It's the content that should matter, and I think that's what the court was saying.

We are in agreement here but that isn't what the court was saying. They were saying that certain parties will read the content and be told they are insiders or outsiders based on the code words within the objective message. "Evolution is a theory" becomes code for "You are down with God." When you read those words and know the code, you know that the school board has sent you a message that they are down with you and God as well. But the assuption that parties know and believe this code is the courts.

Quote:
I admit I haven't read the full decision, nor am I a constitutional lawyer even if I had read the whole thing. But I think they went beyond what you're ascribing to it.

I've read the full decision and I don't even play a constitutional lawyer on television, but I think if you look at the actual language of the sticker and see what the court ascribes as actions to each party and why they assign those actions (historical context) then you will see my view on this.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #225 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'd still like to hear you explain how psychology is materialistic.

Come on now, BRussell, it's apparent that modern psychology starts with man as only a bundle of chemicals-- a la 'humans do not have souls'/all is only chemical imbalance, etc., -- and is completely disingenuous with the claims that it is 'only looking for empirical evidence'.

Saying modern psychology 'only looks for evidence' is like saying the Southern American states 'only wanted State's rights' in 1861.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #226 of 334
Quote:
The problem is twofold here -- maybe threefold, in that there is a crispy coating of brute force and epistemological unconsciousness to chip through before we could even attempt what you're saying.

Come on then! Let's start. Epistemological unconsciousness - how do we even crack this paradox: firstly, as far as I understand, any concept of 'epistemological unconsciousness' is not even the field of philosophy - more properly, it belongs to psychoanalysis: what can be known, yet is unthought of. This 'unthought known' is what Christopher Bollas transforms out of the Freudian subconscious.

Are we digressing?

To the point: we can deal with the limits of what we know. Thereafter, let's not pretend it's science. This is the field of 'interpretation' of dreams; interpreting what symbols and ciphers there are: like gathering circumstantial evidence to generate a hypothesis. There may indeed be a method, as there is, when a psychotherapist brings the feared unknown into a patient's consciousness. But to call this science is to mince words.

Quote:
Materialism's hegemony, can't have been kind as far as how it has policed itself. Once the hegemony breaks, I think we are going to find abuses that will rival the animatronic Christs found in some churches during the Reformation.

Eh?? There is nothing 'reflective' about materialistic culture - that would be too mentalistic. How could it police itself

Wow - do people in the West think materialistic hegemony will ever break??? There are cultures indifferent to it (considered primitive from the materialistic perspective). I think of Tibetan spiritual culture, or what I know of it from that Brad Pitt in Tibet film. Plurality can indeed lead to confusion, however discovering truth through error is more likely than in confusion (Kuhn). When we have followed the path of materialism and found it to be a dead-end.....then what you say happens....?

Quote:
Are you serious (it's difficult to tell, sometimes)? This thread exists because of the current American "debate" over intelligent design, whose proponents argue that many biological structures are simply too complex to have evolved without the influence of a "designer."



I know..I'm a bad boy. Here goes. But honestly, the American abbreviations throw me. Is it possible for complexity to arise simultaneously?

I think of a PC running Windows XP. Several strands of thought arise.

1). This is not complexity - this is complicatedness. Complicatedness arises from various mutations of Windows systems, leading to confusion and apeing complexity. But we Apple users know better.

2). The degenerate logic used to design Windows XP tends towards entropy. It's going to suffer a heat-stroke when the CPU overworks. But it's possible still to imagine that the Windows XP evolved in steps - through Windows 3.1...97,98, blip! 2000, XP. I see all the mutations and the faults, and I think that oh well, it's working somethings, so that's not a bad thing for a system so long-in-the-tooth. Granted that Windows PC have existed for a million of years, I think that's not too terrible a thing. I can also see why my Windows PC hasn't evolved multi-tasking capabilities without crashing: it must be a throw-back to an earlier stage, perhaps at the pre-Cambrian level of computer technology. That'll be my Sinclair ZX81.

3. Then I think of my handsome Apple powerbook with its sexy curves and shiny gilt finish and Apple logo. Arguement through intelligent design: no argument at all . The proof is in the Apple pudding. Need I say more?


The Windows PC can take another million of years to evolve, but it's pattern of evolution is messed up from the start: there just is no intelligent design.

On the other hand, my Apple shows all the features of a design blue-print: someone sat and planned it's layout; it's aesthetics; its user-friendliness. With more time, the intelligent design reveals its fruits, without the worms that Windows carries.

(Don't take the above seriously, for anyone who's a bit concrete


Quote:
I'd still like to hear you explain how psychology is materialistic.

There was a guy in my philosophy school who answered the question in our philosophy of psychology seminars. He showed all the features of ADHD - he was so funny!! He was also very intelligent - could hold 10 different ideas at once!!! All the class were in awe of him and were immediately silenced by his convincing arguments.

It took me a term to realise he didn't make sense. He'd have answered the question in my description above and I would've been satisfied along with the class!

Explain how psychology is materialistic:

shall we start of with Skinner and behavioural stimulus-responses, which obviated a theory of mind for decades in the 1920s?. This theory 'explained' or purported to explain all human interaction as a function of behaviours and consequences.

How about Freudian psychoanalysis, which drew on military formations as a form of psychic defences and coping strategies, and then used the hydraulic principles of engines to explain instinctual drives and so on? Or 'character armour' and so on? I'm not sure materialistic is the term I would use: modern psychology (like life) has a Cartesian bias: the mind is split off from the brain; the psychologist studies the brain. Even the psychologist who studies the mind, concretises 'ideas' as 'entities' which exist out there. The origins of psychology in 19th century
is materialistic: I hope it's moved on from then.

Is there a shrink in the house?? Maybe they'll be on the Windows PC forums....

The problem with non-materialistic psychology is that it invariably comes across as hokey-pokey new age mumble to a lot of people acculturated to a materialistic mind-set. Kleinian psychoanalysis is maybe different - Klein purports there are demons in mental life of infants. We know that demons exist hiding in bushes and political thickets. Is modern psychology empirical? It's been influenced by empiricism okay; it's hopefully grown up and away from Skinnerian primitivism. I'm sure there is some wonderful holistic (eclectic) work out there, although the mass movement is probably still materially bent.
post #227 of 334
Quote:
..it's great, but don't you think that, even if 'Scientific' Materialism can be forthright enough see itself as a philosophy/religion -- let alone correlate itself to Kant, etc. -- it is barely possible to have the dialogue you propose? Isn't this the nature of Materialism, to have that 'deduction' option once you throw open the door to ultimate contingency?

I Kant follow this!

Let's see.......
Quote:
even if 'Scientific' Materialism can be forthright enough see itself as a philosophy/religion is it possible to have the dialogue you propose?

To recognise your premise, scientific materialism then accepts its limits and defined boundaries where it is reasonable to impute scientific materialism without overextending into other disciplines. I would still venture that a scientist who is aware of his method's limitations (and his worldview's) is going to have a more 'honest' dialogue with someone outside his discipline. Firstly, he is able to 'listen' to the voice of another discipline, or branch of knowledge. The perspective shift, enabling him to step out of his own thinking paradigm may or may not engage him in that 'fusion of horizons' that Gadamer preaches in hermeneutics when we deal with discovering what we can know at the borderline of our own discipline. It moves into the field of uncertainty (i.e. deals with the sceptical position, and instead of being defeatist, withdrawing into the safety of one's own discipline, attempts to make sense of the other's perspective, rather than just shouting loudly about one's own perspective.

In practical life, I find I am more willing to listen to people who are disposed in this open manner, be they metaphysicians, rock star chicks (I wish!) or traffic enforcement police.

Quote:
Isn't this the nature of Materialism, to have that 'deduction' option once you throw open the door to ultimate contingency?

Pray tell then; if this is the nature of materialism, what sneaks in through the back door if not conceptual back-passing? I don't know Ramsay's work at all,other than arguments about casuality caused me to fall asleep in philosophy lectures.
post #228 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
Wow. This thread is still going? It's pass my bedtime.....a few quick posts then.




XX:

This wasn't a trick question. Differentiate a necessary condition from a sufficient condition: time is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition (this is also in your response).

OK, I'm not the philosophical genious that you are, so let's simplify this and backtrack...

You state that evolution and creation are not verifiable. How can you say that with certainty?
post #229 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
Wow. This thread is still going? It's pass my bedtime.....a few quick posts then.




XX:

This wasn't a trick question. Differentiate a necessary condition from a sufficient condition: time is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition (this is also in your response).

OK, I'm not the philosophical genius that you are, so let's simplify this and backtrack...

You state that evolution and creation are not verifiable. How can you say that with certainty?
post #230 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
we can deal with the limits of what we know.

I wouldn't be so sure about that!

Quote:
Explain how psychology is materialistic:
How about Freudian psychoanalysis, which drew on military formations as a form of psychic defences and coping strategies, and then used the hydraulic principles of engines to explain instinctual drives and so on? Or 'character armour' and so on? I'm not sure materialistic is the term I would use: modern psychology (like life) has a Cartesian bias: the mind is split off from the brain; the psychologist studies the brain. Even the psychologist who studies the mind, concretises 'ideas' as 'entities' which exist out there. The origins of psychology in 19th century
is materialistic: I hope it's moved on from then.

It's Romantic, too.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #231 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
Come on then! Let's start. Epistemological unconsciousness - how do we even crack this paradox: firstly, as far as I understand, any concept of 'epistemological unconsciousness'

dash! and blast! I've got one my daughter's birthday parties to 'stupervise'.

Quickly, I meant 'epistemological unconsciousness' as a catch-all for anyone who holds with a belief, but either doesn't know why, or for one reason or another, won't analyze their position critically.

....and great Freud commentary, it reminds me of a Halloween episode of the television series Northern Exposure.

more later.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #232 of 334
XX ,

I'm definitely not a philosophical genius. I'm just learning my way through life as well (yeah...in my own way

Quote:
You state that evolution and creation are not verifiable. How can you say that with certainty?

Hang on then

Firstly, philosophical terminology is jargon, and it's not always helpful: it uses everyday words but adds a special meaning or context to words. Don't ever feel intimidated by big words that people use - question them, since the big words usually hides unpleasant flaws in thinking.

Secondly, I'm not certain of anything, not even what I'm writing. That's why I hang out on an Apple forum and not a philosophy billboard

Here goes.

If I am to know something as certain, that is to say, I know it to be true or false. 'Certainty' is something other than true or false. It is a psychological quality of feeling in a way. It is not a philosophical one: philosophers (of logic) are more interested in whether an argument is valid or not (i.e. true or false). For evolution to be true, it follows the same rules: a valid argument is one in which if the premises are all true, then the conclusion has got to be true as well. No buts. If the conclusion is true, and some of the premises are false, then the argument is not valid. If the premises are 50% false, and 50% true, then the argument is not valid. If the premises are 99% true and 1% false, then it we are dealing with probabilistic validity.

What are the premises of evolution then?

If evolution and creation are verifiable, the task then is to set about a proof of its verifiability. Philosophy of science tries to do this using a formal set of proofs: the best modern example is called 'the randomised controlled trial' and has very powerful useful applications. For instance: I believe that penicillin may help a sick man get better from a chest infection caused by a specific bacterium called haemophilus influenza. If I give 10k men with the same infection, a dose of penicillin for 14 days, and give 10k men with the same infection a smartie pill for 14 days, I will have some 'evidence' which arises at the end of the trial. This data is only as good as my method. This may lead to evidence, which in its simplest form, I have to deduce from the data, what the significance of the findings are. After deducing, I can say that that to take penicillin is better than to take a smartie when I have an infection caused by haemophilus influenza. I can then make inferences about the wider world; maybe children and women would also benefit from penicillin in similar illnesses...and so on.

Thus an operation called 'hypothesis-deduction, or the hypothetico-deductive method' (Scientists like this).

If I repeated this trial, I could 'verify' that the results with penicillin still hold and that my trial wasn't a fluke. I could show off and do the trial a year later and get the same results. Then I am said to have demonstrated that there is reproducibility of the experiment, and validity in the results.

How can I do any of this with a question about where 'I come from', when I approach this question like a scientist?

A philosopher says that the question of 'evolution' or 'creation' is an 'epistemological' challenge i.e. one of knowledge: there is no human knowledge out there that can prove to us that the world exists in the scientific way we would like to see. I wasn't there to observe the origin of the world in the way I can watch my experiment. I am also a part of the world, and find it hard to see outside of my human limitations. I cannot go back in time to observe the origin of the world, nor repeat its genesis. One cop-out is to say that because it is impossible to know, then it doesn't matter what I think about evolution or creation. That kind of intellectual laziness isn't what I'm arguing the corner for. It's the intellectual honesty: when there is a limit in what I can know based on reason or observation, then it puts me in a difficult position of having then to consider what I have to do when I no longer can argue for what I want to be true.


Em, does that help?
post #233 of 334
If A.....then B.

Ok.

Thinking about it this way.

St Anselm argued for the existence of God using what he considered to be a formal 'proof' (a philosophical proposition). It's been a long time since I read St Anselm - I think it's called the argument through perfection or through design. If God is perfect, what would being perfect be like? Perfect things exist...and imperfect things do not exist. To not exist would be imperfect, therefore God exists. Ta da!

I hope I've not made a horlicks (www.horlicks.com) of St Anselm's proof, but frankly, no one is convinced by his proof today. His proof results from fawlty logic.

Since St Anselm, other theologians have tried to demonstrate a 'proof' for God's existence, or creation. Their failure does not imply that God does not exist; merely that their methods are suspect and precisely the method of logic, linguistic or philosophical, does not answer this question.

The point is that St Anselm did not demonstrate that God existed through reason.

Similarly, his philosophical argument by design: the world is so wonderful and beautiful that it must have been designed. It is inconceivable that anything beautiful could have arisen without appealing to the pleasure senses of mankind. Beautiful things were created for man.

I know artists who feel this way, and treat me as ignorant if I question their feeling. I know better now than to question their feeling: artists have an intuitive knowing - a pre-rationale sense of consciousness which connects them with a life that they know through feeling: this is a non-scientific way of knowing. It has been rubbished, ridiculed in modern times, but in the 18th and 19th century, it was very much recognised. It is interesting to see the same idea ressurected as ID. Surely you all know what ID means?

Who am I to say that artist's ways of knowing are wrong?? Their passion and their lives exemplify the appreciation of beauty which I yearn for. Well, pretending that I passed my philosophy exams, I am not convinced by their argument's logic: basically there is no logical argument, even if their lives testify to something which moves me. Their experience may indeed be real, but I am ignorant of it. Therefore it is not going to be very helpful for convincing me of anything to hear them repeat it (in fact, it annoys them and me that I seem to be such a blockhead!).

From pondering the question and examining other ponderings from other ponderers, here is one conclusion or another that I can come up with:

St Anselm's premises are false, therefore his conclusions are false [for his method]. For evolution to be true, then the power of its methodology would help me determine if its premises are true.

Yet Reason does not define God, creation or evolution into existence. The limits of reason stop me from addressing the question, therefore the question of God goes beyond reason [logic] (and not just beyond mine).

The other problem it would raise, if it could be proven that there is intelligent design, is that if believing in God is reasonable, then it is reasonable that man would require no faith in God. To have no faith in God amounts to
atheism, although atheism is a stronger refutation that God exists. Trying to prove dragons never existed is probably easier. Kierkegaard wisely calls the movement towards God a 'leap of faith'. This wasn't a blind leap; he lept from a philosophical foundation, which acknowledged that philosophy and reason, science and knowing were not the domains which could answer questions about God: this was a choice, based on an existential decision.


Hope that helps?

John Hoskins does a good introduction to philosophical problems - it's called 'Introduction to philosophical analysis'. You might enjoy it before going on to Karl Popper

Quote:
We can deal with the limits of what we know.



Midwinter -

In English, the word 'deal' can convey 'trying to grapple with' the limits of what we know. I'd follow suite in being unsure - mostly we rest in our comfort zones and 'deal' (i.e. manage) from within.

Romanticism and materialism have the same roots. Are you familiar with the 19th century writer Jens Peter Jacobsen? He has to be one of the most stunning writers I've ever read. His 'Niels Lynne' is just impeccably sensuous in its dream-like, scalpel precision.


Quote:
...and great Freud commentary, it reminds me of a Halloween episode of the television series Northern Exposure.

NE was fantastic!! I used to get it on telly here until the time Fleischman moved back to the city and poor Maggie felt dumped. Thereafter, it was always Frasier
post #234 of 334
Ooh.

Where's pfflam?
post #235 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Come on now, BRussell, it's apparent that modern psychology starts with man as only a bundle of chemicals-- a la 'humans do not have souls'/all is only chemical imbalance, etc., -- and is completely disingenuous with the claims that it is 'only looking for empirical evidence'.

First, you really can't talk about "modern psychology" as if it were a person. There are as many different views as there are individuals. David Myers is a well-known and highly respected psychologist with a religious perspective. Here's a link. Check out his books and articles that focus on the psychology of religion.

What would you consider not to be a materialistic outlook for psychology? Do you want us doing theology? Psychologists study the mind. How can that be materialistic. Sure there are people trying to link brain events to mental events. Most don't. Most probably believe that, in theory, all mental events are linked to physiological events. Some don't believe that. But you can't study the mind and be a materialist, unless you define materialism in such a way that it doesn't mean anything.
Quote:
Saying modern psychology 'only looks for evidence' is like saying the Southern American states 'only wanted State's rights' in 1861.

Huh? We're not only looking for evidence? What are we looking for? Psychology is like a bunch of racists pretending not to be racist? I honestly don't get what you're implying, so why don't you just state it. We're trying to prove there is no God? What is this ulterior motive?
post #236 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
Midwinter -

In English, the word 'deal' can convey 'trying to grapple with' the limits of what we know. I'd follow suite in being unsure - mostly we rest in our comfort zones and 'deal' (i.e. manage) from within.

I wasn't poking at the verb. I was poking with how you seem to be accepting that there are limits and we know them when we see them. In light of this discussion of facticity and all things pomo, surely there are hairs to be split there?

Quote:
Romanticism and materialism have the same roots. Are you familiar with the 19th century writer Jens Peter Jacobsen? He has to be one of the most stunning writers I've ever read. His 'Niels Lynne' is just impeccably sensuous in its dream-like, scalpel precision.

Yeah, I know him from having translated Darwin, and I've read bits of NIels Lynne (not enough to remember).

As for Romanticism, though (that's a mighty big jump from the Big Six to the Lesser Dane), my point was that you can really track the provenance of modern psychology back from Freud through gothic novels through Wordworth talking about how the child is father of the man, back through Mandeville and Shaftesbury and their debates about the nature of man, and Locke and Hume and their thinking about identity and memory. Earlier than that, I don't know much. Romanticism's renaissance (har har) in the early 20th century is only different insofar as it's so interested in the mind/individual, and pomo, well, it's pomo.

Quote:
NE was fantastic!! I used to get it on telly here until the time Fleischman moved back to the city and poor Maggie felt dumped. Thereafter, it was always Frasier

You didn't miss anything. Once Fleischman left, it really went downhill, which was a damned shame.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #237 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin
Explain how psychology is materialistic:

shall we start of with Skinner and behavioural stimulus-responses, which obviated a theory of mind for decades in the 1920s?. This theory 'explained' or purported to explain all human interaction as a function of behaviours and consequences.

Skinner was damn materialistic. But most behaviorists were methodological behaviorists, who focused on behavior because it could be objectively measured, not because they denied the existence or importance of the non-material. And the reason they took this methodological position is because of the excesses of the first psychologists in Germany, who were utterly uninterested in anything material. In any case, the Cognitive Revolution in psychology took place about 40 years ago, and behaviorism was thoroughly discredited and rejected.

Quote:
How about Freudian psychoanalysis, which drew on military formations as a form of psychic defences and coping strategies, and then used the hydraulic principles of engines to explain instinctual drives and so on? Or 'character armour' and so on? I'm not sure materialistic is the term I would use: modern psychology (like life) has a Cartesian bias: the mind is split off from the brain; the psychologist studies the brain. Even the psychologist who studies the mind, concretises 'ideas' as 'entities' which exist out there. The origins of psychology in 19th century
is materialistic: I hope it's moved on from then.

It's hard for me to imagine a less materialistic theory than psychoanalytic theory. And the first, late 19th century psychologists - Wundt, Titchener - were about as non-materialistic as you can get, and brought about the reactionary behaviorists.
Quote:
The problem with non-materialistic psychology is that it invariably comes across as hokey-pokey new age mumble to a lot of people acculturated to a materialistic mind-set. Kleinian psychoanalysis is maybe different - Klein purports there are demons in mental life of infants. We know that demons exist hiding in bushes and political thickets. Is modern psychology empirical? It's been influenced by empiricism okay; it's hopefully grown up and away from Skinnerian primitivism. I'm sure there is some wonderful holistic (eclectic) work out there, although the mass movement is probably still materially bent.

You'd have to define what you mean by non-materialistic psychology for me, but most actual areas of psychology are non-materialistic in my view, and most areas hardly comes across as new age to people who actually study it.

I know nothing about Klein or Kleinian psychoanalysis, but if a belief in demons is a pre-requisite of being non-materialistic, then you may be doing what I believe dmz is doing: Defining materialism so broadly, and setting such strange criteria for non-materialism, that you couldn't possibly be satisfied.
post #238 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I know nothing about Klein or Kleinian psychoanalysis, but if a belief in demons is a pre-requisite of being non-materialistic, then you may be doing what I believe dmz is doing: Defining materialism so broadly, and setting such strange criteria for non-materialism, that you couldn't possibly be satisfied.

BRussell, materialism is the water that you swim in -- it's [Schaeffer's/Van Til's] man in an infinite sea, building a ladder of water, setting that ladder against water and then attempting to climb out of the water.

You've got to get to the point where you can examine your position critically.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #239 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
BRussell, materialism is the water that you swim in . . . You've got to get to the point where you can examine your position critically.

Irony stick at the ready.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #240 of 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Ooh.

Where's pfflam?

/**************************************/
/** begin blatently egging pfflam on**/
/*************************************/

uh......gee, Hassan i Sabbah, I think pfflam would be outta his depth -- don'cha know.

/**************************************/
/** end blatently egging pfflam on**/
/*************************************/

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › understanding and using correct terminology