atheists

[HumblePie]

Since the establishment of a hypothesis to test is the first step in the scientific method, it is virtually by definition that a hypothesis starts out with no evidence to support it. Once the hypothesis has been established, however, we need to follow through (as you describe) by designing methods to collect data while we test the hypothesis so that on completion we can determine whether or not the hypothesis descibes our real world. Hypothesis that are demonstrated to be true add to our scientific understanding of reality; hypothesis that turn out to be false are discarded.

I'm not sure that the scientific approach to knowledge allows for a "limbo" to hold untested and/or untestable hypothesis. It seems to me that until these hypothesis are tested (e.g. the tooth fairy and string theory?), they need to be banished into the realm of philosophy/religion.

Wrong, that's why it's a method and not a subjective determination. Also you can have some evidence before making a hypothesis easy enough. For example: with my dish washing detergent. In my earlier example I asked you to picutre a person with no knowledge of what that was and given a list of names of brands and asked to pick out which one was best from that list. A person with no knowledge of the subject could still formulate a hypothesis that a given brand, chosen at random, would be best. However a person with prior knowledge may choose the brand that they've used in the past even if they've never used all brands out there. That second person would be creating a hypothesis with a limited set of evidence already obtained, despite obtaining that evidence prior to forming their hypothesis. Why? Much of the time a hypothesis is fomed after evidence for an event has occurred. It makes it easier to create a hypothesis that might lead us to tests that move our understanding int he right direction.

However, one can easily lose sight of the scientific method and only do tests that may only validate and provide the only proof needed for their hypothesis to be correct. Going back to my earlier example of the dish washing detergent. If the second person, who's used dish washing detergent before, is asked to pick the best brand and that person chooses their favorite brand that is fine. What is not fine is if that person ONLY does tests of comparisons between the brand they like and brands they already know they don't like and aren't as good. See what I'm getting at here? Unless all tests are completed the hypothesis will remain unvalidated fully. This actually happens quite a bit too.

 

[Paul98]

Much of what is being argued in this thread about the meaning of atheist, religion, god,... are meaningless. Each person has their preconceived notions of what these words mean. Without defining what each word means to you you will never get an agreement on things. You end up with people talking about different things and maybe agreeing without even knowing it.

As for reality being predetermined without some outside influence, I have a hard time believing this given the vacuum energy, quantum uncertainty, virtual particles, double slit experiment,... Now I do think there is a lot that is predetermined. Also it may be shown in the future that everything is predetermined. But I doubt that this will happen. But got to go now be back later

 

[DougK62]

Much of what is being argued in this thread about the meaning of atheist, religion, god,... are meaningless. Each person has their preconceived notions of what these words mean. Without defining what each word means to you you will never get an agreement on things. You end up with people talking about different things and maybe agreeing without even knowing it.

All of those words have very clear definitions. Some people just prefer to be ignorant of them, or worse yet, still believe incorrect definitions when presented with the truth. That's what makes these threads so unbearable at times. Beating your head against the wall. My favorite is when someone argues that Catholics aren't Christians. That's akin to arguing that 2+2 isn't 4.

 

[Paul98]

All of those words have very clear definitions. Some people just prefer to be ignorant of them, or worse yet, still believe incorrect definitions when presented with the truth. That's what makes these threads so unbearable at times. Beating your head against the wall. My favorite is when someone argues that Catholics aren't Christians. That's akin to arguing that 2+2 isn't 4.

This is true and is why you have to ask questions of people who say things that are incorrect to understand what they believe to be true. When communicating with people you need to try and talk to them on their level, and try to show them that what they believe is incorrect. Expecting some random person to know exactly what you mean is not a good idea unless you explain what you mean. It is like when you are trying to teach someone something, you need to first figure out what they know and explain what you are saying. That way you know they are hearing what you are saying, and not getting what they think you are saying. Which could be two very different things.

 

[Paul98]

Quite to the contrary; I believe the objective-reality of a symbol (such as a word) is socially constructed with nuance and meaning that varies in any given context in ways that can hardly be accounted for by a simple dictionary.

But with that, also, we must contend with the fact that despite clear statements of suppositions, intentions and even nuanced delineation of meaning (on the part of you, the sender) we also have receiver contextual factors that delimit understanding, interpretation and ability to comprehend the newly detailed symbol.

As such, I believe that delineation of nuance in a word to such a point that generally-accepted meanings are lost is the abuse of language.

To create a new symbol that is more free from denotative and connotative meaning in the mind of the receiver, i believe, is a perfectly valid method of moving past the intellectual-dishonesty intrinsic in appealing to symbols that would have otherwise evoked not only the meaning intended, but also other implied meanings.

The best reason, though I disagree with this reason, to use an existing word for such detail is to change the way the person viewing the symbol generally accepts and interprets it: to suppress the contrary meanings previously intrinsic in the way the receiver accepted the word. This is what I call propaganda.

I assume, though, that you identify with your detailed explication of the symbol given and as such you are simply expressing your identity through the word; not as an intent to create or disseminate intellectually dishonest propaganda, but as an honest expression of "self".

To this end I applaud the attempt, particularly as it may relate to trying to help others not only understand the logic internal to the word-game that makes up your world, but also as it may help others that would otherwise be socially repressed by intellectually dishonest discourse.

*****
Actually I don't agree with the social-constructivist semiotics perspective just used... but I feel that I'm already pushing being dismissed for being so fancy-pants with my words; so a detailed explanation of ontology as the facticity of hermeneutics and the relation of that to the ontoic and the aforementioned epistemic system of semiotics would probably get an "eyes roll" emoticon in response.

If you want to communicate with someone or a group of people you need to know who you are talking to. If you are talking to someone who won't understand if you communicate with them in one way you need to talk to them in a different way where they will understand. Really you just sound like an idiot if you try and talk to people in a way that they won't understand.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If you want to communicate with someone or a group of people you need to know who you are talking to. If you are talking to someone who won't understand if you communicate with them in one way you need to talk to them in a different way where they will understand. Really you just sound like an idiot if you try and talk to people in a way that they won't understand.

Based on previous experiences, enough people catch the narrative turn that some follow me. Based on how poorly others are comprehending Cerpin Taxt, the attempt to add nuance that rejects received meanings is, itself, being misunderstood. I offer no value judgments to this.

As for reality being predetermined without some outside influence, I have a hard time believing this given the vacuum energy, quantum uncertainty, virtual particles, double slit experiment,... Now I do think there is a lot that is predetermined. Also it may be shown in the future that everything is predetermined. But I doubt that this will happen. But got to go now be back later

Be it predetermined or randomly determined, there is no way to bring human agency/free will into the picture without appealing to the transcendental.

 

[Thebobo]

STAR TREK: "Who Watches... "

PICARD
Your own reports describe how
rational these people are.
Millennia ago, they abandoned all
belief in the supernatural. And
now you're asking me to sabotage
that achievement... send them
back into the Dark Ages of fear
and superstition.