It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The most popular religion in the modern Western world- the most fervently defended, the most universally accepted, and the most fundamentally flawed.
After some quick reading about Roger Bacon, I think that you are mistaken.
I'm not sure that you even understand what my basic premise is.
From the Euclidean perspective the universe is infinite, and this is the orthodox of your vaunted “science” (as of now anyway, but that can always change).
Originally posted by Peeple
That's a disappointment. I overestimated you apparently.
originally posted by: Connell
Rationality can be accurately summed up as dogmatic naturalism, something that attempts to apply human perceptual standards to the universe at large, and attempts to explain our existence through extrapolation of observable telluric phenomena.
There is a distinct trend of anthropocentrism among the more ignorant and simple-minded adherents to rationalism, believing "humanity" is somehow the pinnacle of existence, the human mind a sacred entity. This is also the basis of secular humanism, the elevation of “humanity” to the point that it occupies a spiritual, abstract significance to the humanist. There is also a marked trend of quantity and matter as opposed to metaphysical quality and virtue. Everything is relativised to fit human perceptions. .....
originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Connell
Rationality can be accurately summed up as dogmatic naturalism, something that attempts to apply human perceptual standards to the universe at large, and attempts to explain our existence through extrapolation of observable telluric phenomena.
Except for the fact that logic and the scientific method are the only tools that humans have ever used that have resulted in a system that provides accurate predictions.
The validity of any system of thought can be measured by the accuracy of the predictions it makes.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Connell
After some quick reading about Roger Bacon, I think that you are mistaken.
Interesting that someone making an allegedly informed epistemological argument should (1) need to look up Roger Bacon and (2) believe that 'some quick reading' would suffice. What did you read?
I'm not sure that you even understand what my basic premise is.
Your basic premise is that the dominant philosophical paradigm of the moment, scientific materialism (or, more generally, Hobbesian empiricism), is itself based on a set of axioms (or, as you would have it, unexamined assumptions) and is therefore, in your view, nothing more than another belief system. In support of this you offer the somewhat banal proposition that fundamental reality, whatever it is, cannot be anything at all like it appears to our senses; therefore we are operating with a set of convenient illusions, etc. All very old hat, I'm afraid, and well understood by those who operate within the paradigm. As well as irrelevant to your actual argument.
How Roger Bacon saw the world of categories — 'species' in his Aristotelian terminology — is of no importance to us. It is clear that you did not understand what is meant by the phrase 'the universe has a metrical frame'. Go and look it up. Then come back and we can, perhaps, have a discussion.
From the Euclidean perspective the universe is infinite, and this is the orthodox of your vaunted “science” (as of now anyway, but that can always change).
This amusing little howler exemplifies just how little you know about my 'vaunted "science"'.
Seconded.
originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.
I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend
originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.
I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend
originally posted by: AdamuBureido
originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.
I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend
for someone arguing mathematics
your lack of knowledge of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which states that for every consistent mathematical system, there are statements which are true within that system, which can't be proven within the system itself is troubling, especially since the OP's post, while not naming it, shows he at least familiar with it...
originally posted by: Connell
All complex logical systems will contain assumptions that can't be proven either true or false, and you have to go outside that system to devise new axioms. It creates a system that continually grows more complex and contains more and more assumptions that can't be proven. The goal of science is to come up with a set of axioms that can explain everything in the outside world, but because of what I just said, science will never achieve that goal.
originally posted by: combinatorics
originally posted by: AdamuBureido
originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.
I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend
for someone arguing mathematics
your lack of knowledge of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which states that for every consistent mathematical system, there are statements which are true within that system, which can't be proven within the system itself is troubling, especially since the OP's post, while not naming it, shows he at least familiar with it...
Yup, that's Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. How did you deduce "I don't understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorem", though?
originally posted by: AdamuBureido
originally posted by: combinatorics
originally posted by: AdamuBureido
originally posted by: combinatorics
Math is totally correct and infallible, but only within itself. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. That works perfectly in math, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, like objects in the physical world for example, it doesn't work.
I haven't read the whole thread, but this here is plenty enough to point out that your arguments are riddled with holes. By "math is correct within itself", you probably meant "it's correct within certain axiomatic systems". I recommend you study math a bit more if you want to play Godel, my friend
for someone arguing mathematics
your lack of knowledge of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which states that for every consistent mathematical system, there are statements which are true within that system, which can't be proven within the system itself is troubling, especially since the OP's post, while not naming it, shows he at least familiar with it...
Yup, that's Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. How did you deduce "I don't understand Godel's Incompleteness Theorem", though?
your claim OP's argument is full of holes
is no more than argumentum ad lapidem with a dash of divine fallacy perhaps?