'Not thinking beyond the nose.' (atheist, agnostic, quote, faith)

[agnostic soldier]

I think we all know which poster keeps making this claim. It is ignorance though. Almost all scientists are open and strive to thinking outside the box. Science(there's no such thing as theist or atheist science) isn't limited to a set of preconceived conclusions. It works by using the scientific method and makes claims based on what is proven through that method. Not accepting unsubstantiated claims isn't delimiting oneself from 'thinking beyond the nose.'

[sanspeur]

Yes, that is as plain as the nose on my face....Sorry, I just couldn't resist....

[catman]

Yes, the nature of 'proving' a negative is asking far too much. If a 'positive' can't be proven, attempting to use our own demands against us is absurd. The burden of proof lies upon the believer.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by agnostic soldier

I think we all know which poster keeps making this claim. It is ignorance though. Almost all scientists are open and strive to thinking outside the box. Science(there's no such thing as theist or atheist science) isn't limited to a set of preconceived conclusions. It works by using the scientific method and makes claims based on what is proven through that method. Not accepting unsubstantiated claims isn't delimiting oneself from 'thinking beyond the nose.'

Yeah; anyone who repeatedly spews these idiotic and insulting statements is only seeking to irritate. We make the mistake in continuing to talk with them, they laughing maniacally down in their darkened basements, the room lit only by the computer screen...

That's their only recourse, since logic has abandoned their heads, and they have only intellectual cow droppings left to spread around.

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Yeah; anyone who repeatedly spews these idiotic and insulting statements is only seeking to irritate. We make the mistake in continuing to talk with them, they laughing maniacally down in their darkened basements, the room lit only by the computer screen...

That's their only recourse, since logic has abandoned their heads, and they have only intellectual cow droppings left to spread around.

I disagree with this opinion.
It appears to me to be a qenuine desire to understand, the use of 'big words' and borrowed phrases that are supposed to make others assume a great intelligence but then a begging for explanations in simple terms because the level of understanding doesn't quite match the comprehension level so hopefully projected.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Yeah; anyone who repeatedly spews these idiotic and insulting statements is only seeking to irritate. We make the mistake in continuing to talk with them, they laughing maniacally down in their darkened basements, the room lit only by the computer screen...

That's their only recourse, since logic has abandoned their heads, and they have only intellectual cow droppings left to spread around.

Speak for yourself...I don't respond to him, although now and them I'm tempted. All I get back are insults about not thinking beyond the nose on my face....Total waste of time....

[TRANSPONDER]

It's sometimes not clear whether someone using fallacious arguments is doing it because they don't know any better or because they are just trying to wind us up.

I don't know whether the indignant whinnying I get when fallacy is pointed out is a genuine feeling that I'm insulting them or being unfair or just a ploy to reject that argument.

It's the same with the misrepresentation of science, the rules of logic, the validity of empirical evidence and so on. I don't know whether it's just done in order to prop up faith - based arguments (whether religious, fringe - science or Cultish) or really because people generally do not know how to argue logically, because nobody teaches them to.

If I may address this question of the reliability of science, the rules of logic and the validity of empirical evidence, I won't mention names, but I had a debate with one poster who was trying to argue that empirical evidence was not to be trusted because of our imperfect perceptions.

This is a very good question and the only answer I had was that we really have nothing else. I have often said that 'common sense' is not to be trusted. Neither are our perceptions. It is only the tried and tested methods of experiment that correct our misperceptions.

It is often pointed out to those who question science that they use it every day. This is not a 'you too' fallacy. It is pointing out that we have a massive corpus of information and technology - repeatable and reliable - which testifies to the soundness of experiment.

I pointed out to that poster that the proofs that the planets do go round the sun and not around the earth and that the earth is not flat with a star - dome over it must be just one of the many proofs that science is reliable.

With other posters I have had the validity of logic questioned. Here, I could only say that, though logic, like mathematics, is a human construct, it is based on undeniables. You get two apples and add another one, you get three. Though the numbers are a human invention, it works as soundly as the combustion engine. Similarly, to add a rock to two apples makes three, but not three apples. It is still two apples plus a rock.

The logic of that is flaming obvious and from such logical beginings the soundness of logical thought develops until the rules of logic and the avoidance of logical fallacies should be the basis of all discussion, as should be sound science.

When we don't get it in arguing with theists and even have them trying to dismiss science and logic, it only shows how poor their arguments really are.

There's more. The recurring fallacy in theist argument is the 'either or' fallcy. The idea that, if science and logic is wrong then their argument must be right.

But their argument is just one supposition. It's just one theory. In fact the dismissal of any rational argument or scientific evidence leaves the field wide open for every theory that there is and every speculation one can think of.

In religion, dismissing the evidence about the origins of matter and life and saying 'goddunnit' only leaves (as I have often said) 'which god?'

It's the same with Pascal's wager. Even giving credit to any theist argument only raises the question: 'which god or religion?'

I suppose they can they argue that, since it's a matter of belief their belief is valid but it must surely be obvious that other 'beliefs' are equally valid. The theist must then start giving 'reasons' why their belief is preferrable to the others and right away we are arguing and using evidence.

If so, let's do it right.

Let's look at this other idea - that is really the 'beyond the nose' argument. In various ways posters here have argued that 'belief' is better than 'science' because it goes to places where science doesn't.

This is a common argument and has some merit. There are many examples of people who ran foul of scientific orthodoxy with their outlandish theories. However, to argue that this means that science is too restrictive and fringe science or philosophical speculation is 'better' is overlooking that many outlandish theories turned out to be dead wrong.

They have to be tested and tested again and proven and repeatable and with proper controls, and all the checks of scientific method have to be met before those speculations can be taken as science.

Just saying that science is inferior because it cannot do mind - reading is a fallacious argument. Mind - reading is an attractive idea but, since all tested examples of mind - reading have been shown to be a bit of a theatre trick or a statistical fallacy (biased sample) science is right in saying that it is unproven and logic is right in saying that what is not yet clearly proven by sound evidence is not worth believing.

People who believe in mind - reading are therefore being illogical, irrational and unscientific. Saying that believing in it makes them feel good is simply foolish. Let's be done with foolishness.

I hardly need argue how that axiom applies to all other theistic, fringe - science and cult stuff.

Let it be put to bed, once and for all, that faith, speculation and personal conviction is somehow more valid than sound science, sound logic and sound reasoning. And hi - jacking the trappings and terminology of science, logic and reason does not make it any more valid. Just a bit more dishonest.

[rifleman]

Thank you, Dr. Arequipa. Very well stated, and irrefutable to boot!