An infinite series of finite causes.

[Tassman]

You mean like this claim of yours: Either way, all gods are a human constructs and do not have an independent reality.

So you agree that you can not show that this claim is a fact, thanks...

It is not a scientific question, therefore not open to scientific enquiry, OTOH there is no substantive evidence to support the notion of gods being anything more than a human construct. If you think there is then present it.

[element771]

It is not a scientific question, therefore not open to scientific enquiry, OTOH there is no substantive evidence to support the notion of gods being anything more than a human construct. If you think there is then present it.

Are you a logical positivist or an emperacist? If so, by what criteria do you adopt this view.

[Tassman]

Are you a logical positivist or an emperacist? If so, by what criteria do you adopt this view.

The standard definition of science is "the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Hence, the alleged existence of an immaterial deity is not a question for science.

[Tassman]

Not what I meant by 'complex'.

Never said that the methods of metaphysics and science are equal. I said they're different. Science sucks at settling certain metaphysical disputes; metaphysics sucks at settling certain disputes in physics.

Correct, science and metaphysics are not equal. Science can arrive at facts sufficiently reliable to put a man on the moon. Metaphysics can never have such certainty, because there are no means to establish such certainty...merely academic argumentation.

Yes, a metaphysical argument does and can acquire new truths about nature, as I've repeatedly said, and justified, and you've ignored.

See above.

Don't know what you mean by 'merely an academic discipline'.

I've debunked everything you've argued. You just repeat yourself and pretend like nothing has been said. It's pathetic.

Only in your own mind!

Metaphysics isn't just conceptual analysis.

Yes, metaphysics can arrive at new facts without scientific verification.

Aristotle was right in some areas and wrong others. So what?

Yes, metaphysics has come a long way since Aristotle. You're just ignorant.

NOT an axiom. In short, it is science NOT metaphysics.

To call it 'semantic exercises' is pejorative and misrepresents what's going on.

Since you don't define 'real', I have no idea what you mean when you talk about achievements.

Nope. It amounts to more than that. You just can't read or understand what I'm saying.

Oh right!

Yes, it is an issue. You're wrong. Didn't I already anticipate you would go to Rational Wiki? Frankly, Rational Wiki sucks. Do you have a scholarly source? It doesn't have to do merely with the nature of hypotheses; it has to do with methods. Falsification isn't a hypothesis; it's a method.

Give me the link so I can see how you ripped that from its context.

https://pervegalit.files.wordpress.c...er-17-2009.pdf

[mattbballman31]

Correct, science and metaphysics are not equal.

Not what I meant by 'equal', but nice try.

Science can arrive at facts sufficiently reliable to put a man on the moon.

So what?

Metaphysics can never have such certainty, because there are no means to establish such certainty...merely academic argumentation.

Yes it can, and yes there is. Nice try.

See above.

Yea, it was dumb.


Metaphysics can be backed up by facts and supporting evidence. Easy.

Only in your own mind!

Nope.


So what?

It begins with an axiom, i.e. an assumption, which cannot be ascertained as correct, and a deductive argument proceeds from there.

It can be ascertained as correct. Nothing wrong with beginning with axioms. Science does it too.

NOT an axiom.

Testability isn't what marks science from non-science. Justifying testability is based on axioms. Easy.

In short, it is science NOT metaphysics.

So what?


No, it's not a semantic exercise. Already explained why.


You're so stupid. Anti-realists could use this dictionary definition, idiot.

Oh right!

Yep!


So what? Not the point.

From Haack's article AGAINST SCIENTISM!!! It's a THIRD SIGN OF SCIENTISM!!!!!! Oh my God, you're so dumb. Haack's point, idiot, is AGAINST people like you harping on testability/falsifiability as SCIENCE, to the exclusion of the methodologies I've given you a billion times that lead to new knowledge, and YOU DISQUALIFYING SUCH METHODOLOGIES because they're NOT SCIENCE.

YOU ARE SO STUPID!!!

[mattbballman31]

The standard definition of science is "the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Hence, the alleged existence of an immaterial deity is not a question for science.

[mattbballman31]

It is not a scientific question, therefore not open to scientific enquiry, OTOH there is no substantive evidence to support the notion of gods being anything more than a human construct. If you think there is then present it.

[seer]

It is not a scientific question, therefore not open to scientific enquiry, OTOH there is no substantive evidence to support the notion of gods being anything more than a human construct. If you think there is then present it.

No Tass, you are hedging again. You claimed that all gods are human constructs and do not have an independent reality. But you can not demonstrate that that is a fact. It is a metaphysical claim that you can not back up, yet you take it as a fact. You tell Matt that metaphysical claims must be confirmed by science to become fact, but you don't apply that standard to your own outlandish claims.

[Tassman]

From Haack's article AGAINST SCIENTISM!!! It's a THIRD SIGN OF SCIENTISM!!!!!! Oh my God, you're so dumb. Haack's point, idiot, is AGAINST people like you harping on testability/falsifiability as SCIENCE, to the exclusion of the methodologies I've given you a billion times that lead to new knowledge, and YOU DISQUALIFYING SUCH METHODOLOGIES because they're NOT SCIENCE.

.

So funny!

[Tassman]

No Tass, you are hedging again. You claimed that all gods are human constructs and do not have an independent reality. But you can not demonstrate that that is a fact. It is a metaphysical claim that you can not back up, yet you take it as a fact. You tell Matt that metaphysical claims must be confirmed by science to become fact, but you don't apply that standard to your own outlandish claims.

more than human constructs...any more than leprechauns are. As usual you are focusing on the wrong claim.

[mattbballman31]

You really are probably the worst reader on earth.

I know what the thrust of the essay is. It was required reading in graduate school, and we devoted weeks to it. So, I don't need some two-bit retard telling me what the essay is trying to say.

You have been telling me and others in this thread, thousands of time, what constitutes science and what doesn't. You've provided criteria for what you think constitutes science.

THAT IS THE PRESENTATION OF A DEMARCATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE.

MY RESPONSE TO YOU HAS BEEN THAT THE 'DEMARCATION PROBLEM' (THAT YOU'RE ASSUMING HAS BEEN SOLVED) IS SOMETHING THAT NO ONE HAS SOLVED WITH ANY KIND OF CONSENSUS.

YOUR HARPING ON WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T SCIENCE, OR WHAT IS OR ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY IS EXACTLY WHAT HAACK IS SAYING IS A 'SIGN' OF SCIENTISM, and WHAT YOU WERE USING TO JUSTIFY THE FUTILITY OF METAPHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY AS BEING UNABLE TO GENERATE NEW TRUTH USING ITS METHODOLOGIES.

My bringing up of the 'demarcation problem' was IN RESPONSE to you PONTIFICATING on what is and isn't science (WHICH IS THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM ITSELF!).

You're just too stupid to see what you're doing.

Haack talks about the positivists harping on verification for meaning, and Popper harping on falsification, testability, refutability, and Tass-idiot harps on verification and falsification as well. ONCE YOU DO THAT, IDIOT, you're EMPHASIZING DEMARCATION. IN RESPONSE, Haack says:

can only be rough and ready. I might say, as a first
approximation, that science is best understood, not as a body of knowledge, but as a kind
of inquiryapproximation, I would add that, since , formal disciplines like logic
or pure mathematics is far from uniform or
monolithic a loose federation of interrelated kinds of inquiry.

Haack would be THE FIRST TO AGREE that AS AN APPROXIMATION, the WORD 'science' is tied to empirical inquiry. She has to USE THE WORD 'APPROXIMATION' because, DUE TO THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM, there are exceptions to this rule.

Also from Hack:

The Hayek-quote condemns EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING WHEN YOU SAY that philosophy can't do this, and metaphysics can't do that, because only the METHODS AND LANGUAGE OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES can generate new truths constituting knowledge of reality. YOU'RE SAYING THIS LIKE THIS is exactly what Haack is condemning in her 'third sign' of scientism. Haack's SHIFT from demarcations in science to demarcations in explanatory effectiveness is one of the MAIN reasons why many philosophers (Haack is a philosopher!) have departed from her critique of scientism on that last score. But the point remains.

From Haack:

But if we want to get a clear view of the place of the sciences among the many
kinds of inquiry, of the place of inquiry among the many kinds of human activity, and of
the interrelations among the various disciplines classified by deans and librarians as
sciences, we will need to look for continuities as well as differences. For there are
, and what we would ordinarily classify simply as historical inquiry.
There is no sharp boundary between psychology and philosophy of mind, nor between
cosmology and metaphysics.45 Nor is there any very clear line between the very
considerable body of knowledge that has grown out of such primal human activities as
hunting, herding, farming, fishing, building, cooking, healing, midwifery, child-rearing,
etc., etc., and the more systematic knowledge of agronomists, child psychologists, etc.

NO SHARP BOUNDARY BETWEEN COSMOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS? REALLY? Veeeerrrry interesting.

There has been no better demonstration of this than in your interminable, obscurantist rants and arguments over definitions and such pseudo intellectual gems as: .

Well, now that I showed you for the fraud you are (AGAIN!) for cherry-picking a sentence OUT OF CONTEXT which actually PROVES A POINT THAT GOES AGAINST WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SAYING ON THE THREAD THE ENTIRE TIME, everyone can see that you're a pathetic idiot. Truly, a desperate, pathetic idiot.

Again, you're ASSUMPTION that definitions of key terms in scientific language HAVE BEEN SETTLED is an IDIOTIC MYTH, and ONCE YOU USE SUCH DEFINITIONS TO JUSTIFY WHAT IS OR ISN'T SCIENCE, it is YOU, RETARD, THAT ARE HARPING ON DEMARCATION, and it is YOU WHO HAVE THE INSOLENCE OF SETTLING IT with casual references to testability and falsification, and so IT IS YOU that is subject to what Haack is saying in her essay.

Put the coloring books down, and actually READ THROUGH AN ENTIRE ESSAY, and get the context; don't just Google a key word, and cherry-pick a sentence that LOOKS LIKE it supports what you're saying. You're a testimony to how the Internet is making certain people with disgustingly obnoxious psychologies dumber and dumber.

[seer]

more than human constructs...any more than leprechauns are. As usual you are focusing on the wrong claim.

You are just being dishonest now Tass, you clearly said that "all gods are a human constructs and do not have an independent reality." That is a claim you can not backup. And BTW there is no substantive evidence for past eternal matter or energy, yet I suspect that you believe it nonetheless.

[shunyadragon]

Clean your beard of the drool and the corner of your lips for the spittle, ya nut.

Make coherent rational responses would help, and stop the rambling walruses act.

[JonathanL]

Make coherent rational responses would help, and stop the rambling walruses act.

If you ever feel the need to smash more glasshouses I can hook you up with some stones.

[Tassman]

You really are probably the worst reader on earth.



I know what the thrust of the essay is. It was required reading in graduate school, and we devoted weeks to it. So, I don't need some two-bit retard telling me what the essay is trying to say.

You have been telling me and others in this thread, thousands of time, what constitutes science and what doesn't. You've provided criteria for what you think constitutes science.

THAT IS THE PRESENTATION OF A DEMARCATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE.

MY RESPONSE TO YOU HAS BEEN THAT THE 'DEMARCATION PROBLEM' (THAT YOU'RE ASSUMING HAS BEEN SOLVED) IS SOMETHING THAT NO ONE HAS SOLVED WITH ANY KIND OF CONSENSUS.

YOUR HARPING ON WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T SCIENCE, OR WHAT IS OR ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY IS EXACTLY WHAT HAACK IS SAYING IS A 'SIGN' OF SCIENTISM, and WHAT YOU WERE USING TO JUSTIFY THE FUTILITY OF METAPHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY AS BEING UNABLE TO GENERATE NEW TRUTH USING ITS METHODOLOGIES.

My bringing up of the 'demarcation problem' was IN RESPONSE to you PONTIFICATING on what is and isn't science (WHICH IS THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM ITSELF!).

You're just too stupid to see what you're doing.

Haack talks about the positivists harping on verification for meaning, and Popper harping on falsification, testability, refutability, and Tass-idiot harps on verification and falsification as well. ONCE YOU DO THAT, IDIOT, you're EMPHASIZING DEMARCATION. IN RESPONSE, Haack says:



Haack would be THE FIRST TO AGREE that AS AN APPROXIMATION, the WORD 'science' is tied to empirical inquiry. She has to USE THE WORD 'APPROXIMATION' because, DUE TO THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM, there are exceptions to this rule.

Also from Hack:



The Hayek-quote condemns EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING WHEN YOU SAY that philosophy can't do this, and metaphysics can't do that, because only the METHODS AND LANGUAGE OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES can generate new truths constituting knowledge of reality. YOU'RE SAYING THIS LIKE THIS is exactly what Haack is condemning in her 'third sign' of scientism. Haack's SHIFT from demarcations in science to demarcations in explanatory effectiveness is one of the MAIN reasons why many philosophers (Haack is a philosopher!) have departed from her critique of scientism on that last score. But the point remains.

From Haack:



NO SHARP BOUNDARY BETWEEN COSMOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS? REALLY? Veeeerrrry interesting.



Well, now that I showed you for the fraud you are (AGAIN!) for cherry-picking a sentence OUT OF CONTEXT which actually PROVES A POINT THAT GOES AGAINST WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SAYING ON THE THREAD THE ENTIRE TIME, everyone can see that you're a pathetic idiot. Truly, a desperate, pathetic idiot.

Again, you're ASSUMPTION that definitions of key terms in scientific language HAVE BEEN SETTLED is an IDIOTIC MYTH, and ONCE YOU USE SUCH DEFINITIONS TO JUSTIFY WHAT IS OR ISN'T SCIENCE, it is YOU, RETARD, THAT ARE HARPING ON DEMARCATION, and it is YOU WHO HAVE THE INSOLENCE OF SETTLING IT with casual references to testability and falsification, and so IT IS YOU that is subject to what Haack is saying in her essay.

Put the coloring books down, and actually READ THROUGH AN ENTIRE ESSAY, and get the context; don't just Google a key word, and cherry-pick a sentence that LOOKS LIKE it supports what you're saying. You're a testimony to how the Internet is making certain people with disgustingly obnoxious psychologies dumber and dumber.

The bottom line dear boy, is that a misleading emphasis has been placed on the problem of demarcation to the extent that it results in getting bogged down in arguments over definitions rather than evidence. And you are a supreme example of this "getting bogged down" by demanding exact definitions and word meanings and never actually getting around to dealing with the issues. Presumably because you can't! Despite your endless pontifications you still have not at any stage shown how a conclusion to a metaphysical argument can be shown to be true, when there is no way to arrive at a demonstrably true premise. Now is your cue to demand what is meant by "show" and "true" and "demonstrable" etc.