Religion

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)

81. is held as 0 ever since the formulization of rational empiricism, appx. 400 years ago.

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 05:55 PM

Mar 2012

Nonsense.

We often cite we are rediscovering many things the Greeks found out before the Dark Ages, when rational empiricism might be punishable by death because it was held as 0.

It's superstition and revelation sans evidence that is held as 0. The Greeks knew the earth was round and we still believe that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The scientific meta-narrative [View all] Thats my opinion Mar 2012 OP

Ooh, postodernist mumbo-jumbo! Odin2005 Mar 2012 #1

That is a correct assessment. Buy this book: 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #4

See post #27. Jim__ Mar 2012 #28

How can I not love this book? 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #58

I just don't know Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #6

The original post was not really about post-modernism--- Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #67

But very few people are saying that 'one system explains everything' LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #71

Of course you are correct. Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #73

To be truthful, I haven't noticed anyone in the forum who does. LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #75

My understanding of Descartes' thought is a little different from the way you present it. Jim__ Mar 2012 #2

I find your response helfpful, and it clarifies my representation of Descartes Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #3

Cartesian skepticism tama Mar 2012 #38

I think it's kind of interesting how appx. 14,999,600 years of something that might be referred to patrice Mar 2012 #5

is held as 0 ever since the formulization of rational empiricism, appx. 400 years ago. AlbertCat Mar 2012 #81

Okay, so make that appx. 14,997,200 years of something that was regarded as valuable patrice Mar 2012 #82

Actually, if you ask a fish what water is, it won't answer. trotsky Mar 2012 #7

the "You's you refer to in par 2 is not me. Who are these you s? Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #14

He's not calling you a racist, and you know it. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #16

No, he's insinuating it as a disruptive diversion. rug Mar 2012 #37

I see your mind-reading skills are as poor as ever, rug. trotsky Mar 2012 #41

My reading skills are as good as ever, trotsky. rug Mar 2012 #42

No, I'm afraid they're not. trotsky Mar 2012 #46

Good edit. And that one word is the difference between a discussion and a personal attack. rug Mar 2012 #48

Except there was no personal attack. trotsky Mar 2012 #49

Meta-meta humor bongbong Mar 2012 #55

Yeah, I get that a lot. trotsky Mar 2012 #56

Thanks for the change nt Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #64

Problem is, when they're caught and trapped in an argument... trotsky Mar 2012 #40

Who is this "they"? Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #74

"You" in the hypothetical sense. trotsky Mar 2012 #39

Not all scientists tama Mar 2012 #51

My guess is that there will be five more rejections of your ideas Leontius Mar 2012 #8

Your logic is dazzling skepticscott Mar 2012 #10

And whoosh went my point, sorry you don't get it try looking up next time. Leontius Mar 2012 #13

It's easy not to get a point when it's gibberish. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #17

Your "point" went flush, not whoosh. skepticscott Mar 2012 #33

You start badly and get worse skepticscott Mar 2012 #9

Just for the heck of it, try reading Rene nt Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #15

That's it? That's all you can muster? skepticscott Mar 2012 #29

I notice all the true believers in scientism have shown up to trumpet THEIR dogma. nt Speck Tater Mar 2012 #11

The "true believers" are those skepticscott Mar 2012 #12

See post #65 and answer the question. nt Speck Tater Mar 2012 #66

You and others have been told some of the evidence skepticscott Mar 2012 #79

Page 187 of the Handbook of Dishonest Rhetoric. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #18

What the fuck is scientism? No seriously, this shit is literal nonsense. n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #25

Wikepedia: tama Mar 2012 #43

So basically its a perjorative used mostly by those ignorant in how science works... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #101

Don't be ashamed tama Mar 2012 #103

And I notice all those who can't dispute those "true believers'" objections... trotsky Mar 2012 #44

Just one question... Speck Tater Mar 2012 #65

Being able to state the subject is a great start. trotsky Mar 2012 #70

"no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate" longship Mar 2012 #19

See post 4. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #22

I saw that longship Mar 2012 #23

Highly emotional attitude tama Mar 2012 #50

Finnish descent? longship Mar 2012 #52

I'm Finnish tama Mar 2012 #59

One of the most interesting American "anthropological" movies is "Dancing with wolves" AlbertCat Mar 2012 #84

Anthropological tama Mar 2012 #86

Sokal's paper can be compared with the Bogdanov papers published in refereed Physics Journals. Jim__ Mar 2012 #27

That's a particularly thoughtless, not to mention richly ironic skepticscott Mar 2012 #30

You mean publication of a ridiculous paper doesn't serve to undermine an entire field? Jim__ Mar 2012 #35

If that field has a long and documented history skepticscott Mar 2012 #89

A zinger? I realize that evidence will not have any effect on your belief system. Jim__ Mar 2012 #91

Unfortunately for you, the problem is NOT the same skepticscott Mar 2012 #92

You're making my point. Jim__ Mar 2012 #93

Sokol was a deliberate hoax longship Mar 2012 #31

The Bogdanov's were awarded doctorates in Mathematics and Physics. Jim__ Mar 2012 #34

Bogdanov's had PhD's, but... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #61

John Baez is a mathematical physicist and a professor of mathematics. Jim__ Mar 2012 #63

Like I said... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #104

Sokal affair tama Mar 2012 #47

So in post-modernism, if I say my paper is good, its good by default? Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #95

No nt tama Mar 2012 #96

If that were true, then tell us by what standards its claims are tested by. n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #100

I don't know tama Mar 2012 #102

"no system or perspective, which claims to explain everything, is legitimate" AlbertCat Mar 2012 #83

This message was self-deleted by its author absyntheminded Mar 2012 #20

"I think"; therefore thinking, the phenomenological field, is valid: from Descartes to Phenomenology Brettongarcia Mar 2012 #21

Of course. Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #76

What dafuq did I just read? Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #24

Do us all a favor, and no longer talk about science, I do mean at all... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #26

ooooohhhh...but he knows all about skepticscott Mar 2012 #32

These are some of the Great Insights that we should be waiting for? mr blur Mar 2012 #36

And yet Descartes ended up saying you needed knowledge of God to have absolute knowledge muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #45

Lots of mumbo-jumbo bongbong Mar 2012 #53

You'll have to pick a side first if you want the book to sell. rrneck Mar 2012 #68

To be honest, I find post-modern theory much more off-putting than I find religion. LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #54

Great post. You nail it. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #60

"Meta-wrong" Silent3 Mar 2012 #69

Can you cite a postmodern source that claims science claims to explain everything? Jim__ Mar 2012 #72

I am not an expert on post-modernism; but the post-modernists whom I know personally have been LeftishBrit Mar 2012 #77

It is implied in the OP - but in post #67, the OP says he doesn't agree with postmodernism. Jim__ Mar 2012 #78

So, as "science explains everything" tama Mar 2012 #87

I think John Locke... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #57

"believing that they have all the answers to everything" Silent3 Mar 2012 #62

What you claim tama Mar 2012 #90

God is not an entity to be proved, but an experience to be delighted in. AlbertCat Mar 2012 #80

I don't think he was trying to redefine God but hopefuly he will explain Leontius Mar 2012 #85

God is an entity? Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #88

God does not interact with the universe, and there is no life after death FarCenter Mar 2012 #94

You made several statements. tama Mar 2012 #97

Conversely FarCenter Mar 2012 #98

I haven't made claims. tama Mar 2012 #99