Thanks Pelican

Squeers
“Our social lives do not admit of controlled laboratory solutions”

Agreed. And this shows why social science cannot be empirical science; there is no way to control for the critical variables, to know whether B happens *because of* or *despite* A. People are not atoms or stones or planets. Human action is purposive action, and all purposes are subjective. There is no way to quantify, to measure, or to compare people’s subjective evaluations, either as between different people, or the same person at different times. Therefore there is no way to perform valid mathematical operations on social data. All statistical measures are measures of historical contingencies. They are *history*, not *theory*. They do *not* have any necessary explaining or predictive power.

Having disowned the case for empiricism and positivism in social science, we should expect you now to abandon any recourse to them.

“…nor are they objectively above realist problematics.”

What does that mean?

If it’s true, surely you have provided an irrefutable ethical argument against any particular policy recommendation, except a policy to repel with aggression any action involving more aggression than the enforcement of the policy? This would leave unjustified the vast bulk of governmental activity, including all economic interventions which, as I recall, you are in favour of?

“There is no objectivity per se.”

Please define objectivity?

Why is there no objectivity per se?

“Thus modern science is the … pawn … of the prevailing system, and to that extent irrational.”
Agreed. However what objection to irrationality can you make, if you don’t accept the possibility of objectivity?

BTW, you still haven’t answered me whether Pythagoras’s theorem can be objectively proved or disproved. Can it and if so why? Or not, and if not, why not?

“I agree with your main point; we should not cherish our opinions, but treat them with disdain and welcome criticism.”
How can we welcome criticism if we have no objective means to determine whether something is true or not? Just consult our own opinion again in a circle?

'Just consult our own opinion again in a circle?'

That actually works quite well for me. It's also surprisingly popular.

'Pythagoras’s theorem can be objectively proved'

What's proof? It is consistent in the boundaries it exists in. Not sure that counts if the boundaries are not proven. I had a physics lecturer once tell me there is on objective reason why the earth might not in 10 minutes time stop spinning. Then again that guy reckoned that cricket balls should swing less in humid conditions, and that he could see in 4 dimensions.

pelican,

It would be my proudest day to attain the position of Moving Forward Officer. Wow. Just wow.

I don't think agnostics really sit on the fence. It's just that it's not relevant to them. Like it's not relevant to me who wins Master Chef, as I don't watch it. If I was asked to have a punt, obviously I'd bet that there is no god. But I don't feel any need to convince anyone, and I am as happy mocking atheists as much as the religious. The mocking is the important part to me.

It interests me that people should think that the onus is on non-believers to prove non-existence. I like that idea. It can be applied humorously to all sorts of avenues. The Fliying Spahgetti Monster being just one. His noodly goodness. But I like the idea of dogmatically sticking to rules that don't make sense too. I think religions are weakened when they change or move with the times. I don't see the point of doing that. They lose all respect.

I kind of lean towards an ideal of not taking for granted that everything I see touch smell hear or taste really happened. The mind can deceive. All the better when it does.

It's really strange that the existence of god seems a more relevant question to people than the existence of oneself and the world. When I work out whether I and the world I sense around me really exists, then I may consider less important questions.

You are becoming very existentialist Houlley.

A poor edit on my previous post, it should have read "persona non grata" not 'gratis' which of course is a whole different meaning.

I am happy for all manner of personal belief systems as long as they don't intrude or do harm. It is the power mongers that are the flies in the ointment which is perhaps why there are some who have such a problem or resistance to secularism.

>'Just consult our own opinion again in a circle?'

>>That actually works quite well for me. It's also surprisingly popular.

LOL yeah; you can say that again.

>'Pythagoras’s theorem can be objectively proved'

>>"What's proof?"

What about this: "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement"?: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0666290#m_en_gb0666290

>"It is consistent in the boundaries it exists in. Not sure that counts if the boundaries are not proven."
I can't actually see the problem here. I understand geometry originated from measuring land for conveyancing and taxation purposes. Why couldn't we just draw a right-angled triangle on the ground, and define that as providing our boundaries?

>"Then again that guy reckoned ... he could see in 4 dimensions."

Yeah I met a guy once who reckoned he could think in 9 dimensions. I couldn't even understand what he was talking about. But since he joined a religious order "so as to get women", he couldn't be all that insane.

Peter Hume,
you are prejudiced against anything I say, so really no point.. however the subject interests me.

To begin with, empiricism is also based on metaphysics, but that's another topic.
What I was saying, in response to Dave Frampton's excellent comment, is that discrete, objectively derived, "evidence" is also highly dubious when alienated from its context. How far its context extends remains controversial. I also alluded to the fact that the discrete evidence is inevitably and reciprocally corrupted by that context. Scientists and philosophers are well aware of these difficulties. My more important point, in the context of the emotionality of belief, is that the social detachment (asceticism?) associated with the analytic tradition is questionable in at least three ways, a) it devalues the mysterious capacity humans have demonstrated for fathoming manifestations of reality intuitively, imaginatively, serendipitously, aesthetically and contextually. Examples are legion, but Hegel and Crick, and yes, Marx, are a few. And b, even more important, the detachment employed by our analytic priests is irresponsibly subservient to the powers that be. Scientific production is non-aspirational (except when it is openly politically aligned, though as I say it is aligned by default. If our societies were ethical and self-sufficient our science would follow suit), and thus its endeavours are driven by demand, without recourse to ethics (ethical considerations are socially imposed or ignored) Which is why some wits call it "liberal-rationalism". Ironically, we look to science to fix AGW, but it also facilitated it. Untrammelled and essentially random, scientific advance constitutes a dire threat to all life. And c) scientific rationalism is also a social phenomenon, a church that cultivates a kind of grand nihilism that despises the "irrational" nature of social consciousness--scientific self-loathing. Social being, life as we know it, human truths, are abandoned by the purists in favour of a vaunted sterility; a privileged aloofness granted by an idle culture.

Squeers did you swallow a dictionary. You remind me of the pontificator (examinator).

BTW, there is a new trend that's sweeping the nation; Sentences and paragraphs. It's not too late to get on board.

'it devalues the mysterious capacity humans have demonstrated for fathoming manifestations of reality intuitively'

Nah. There's nothing mysterious about that. How does it de-value anything? You should read a book called blink. It's about so-called intuition and how it's just as valuable as analytical thought.

Intuition is basically analytical thought done in the mind without any 'logging', kind of in the sub-conscious, so the conscious doesn't get all the boring details. It's why drugs bring one to a higher plain, they let this state of consciousness do it's thing. Epiphanies abound, but are not 'valued' or appreciated when back in the sober state, as there is too much conscious static, and because of the stigma of drug use.

And my intuition tells me you are more full of it than me. I tend to agree even with my analytical mind.