These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Self defeating requirements for the rationality of religion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#61 - 2013-01-10 16:13:08 UTC
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
Clearly, capsuleers are autistic. It Must Be One Way and Nothing Else is Acceptable.


Thank you for your contribution. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to.
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#62 - 2013-01-10 16:19:43 UTC
Captain Mithra;

I'm trying to grasp where the argument is going - it's moving quicker than my mind can follow, I fear. I'm afraid I'm still hung up on a point we were discussing awhile ago as I feel it's important.

Quote:
So, I fear I have to disappoint you, but there is, by necessity, no algorithm for choosing axioms. This doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable way to choose axioms though - it merely says that this way is fundamentally non-algorithmic.


Here is where I'm stuck. An algorithm is literally a 'way of doing things'. Claiming that there is a non-algorithmic method for choosing axioms is contradictory. I'm going to assume that this is a translation, error, though. Let me try again.

You hold certain axioms to be true. You claim that these axioms cannot be derived through the process of rationality. How, then, do you choose axioms from the infinite selections of axioms available, as Ms Riordan alluded to?
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-01-10 16:46:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
That something is empirically testable does not by any means imply that it is reflected in the real word.


Ugh. I know I said I wasn't going to comment on your garbage any longer, but this is too dumb for restraint.

If something is empirically tested and proven, then it has by definition been demonstrated to be a real-world phenomenon. That's what the term "empirically testable" MEANS - that the phenomenon in question can be investigated and found to be real and existent by anything other than the most solipsistic standards.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Seriphyn Inhonores
Elusenian Cooperative
#64 - 2013-01-10 17:08:19 UTC
Scherezad wrote:
Thank you for your contribution. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to.


What's there to read? The usual recycled arguments from a UoC student channel. You can correlate IGS and the rest of GalNet, and it's no different.
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2013-01-10 17:34:35 UTC
Peronally i found this debate, and the earlier one, wich this one wasgenerated from interesting and intriguing... To all debaters that been from the start, and to all those that yoined as this debate grown, take a moment and try to look upon this from a other angle, in a sense i feel we are disagreeing, and yet agreing on a underlaying perspective, and also the fact that i feel we value words difrently... i also would like to state i am not takingany sides into this, my interest is more the result then anything else...

I feel this all started, couse from a fews perspective science in absolute, and religeon wasent... proof for this statment was asked for, and thus the debate being ongoing... I personaly accept that the universe allways comes with a certain degree of uncertanity, wheter we have "faith" in a religiion, or have probable trust in a scientific explination... their booth theories, and then we can argue about wich one is more probable or less, to this we can add that the universe at times dosent allways act as it should, i had a earlier argument about this, regarding chaos...

Fey Ivory wrote:
We can reason and presume, that there will be chaos, since it have been and is, a on going part of evolution... just couse we can predict that there will be a event. that wont be according to how it should be, dont mean we know when, how and in what way... chaos is part of a pattern, and that pattern is in itself subject to chaos, so yes you can predict that there will be an unpredictable event, unless of course, the universe suddenly started to work excactly as things are soposed to...


Also i feel that some of the debaters are subject to their emotions, wich is very human, but also entrenched in their own paradigm how things should be, in the end, we can only base everything upon the colective gathered knowledge we have to our disposal, and we humans only been part of the universe for a short time, and only affect a fraction of it, is it probable to say we cant really say whats right, or is it a probable reasoning from our perspective, wichin we are devided into many perspectives... so in a sense maybe we are all justifiable right or wrong ?
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#66 - 2013-01-10 17:58:23 UTC
Fey Ivory wrote:
in a sense i feel we are disagreeing, and yet agreing on a underlaying perspective


No. no, I'm pretty certain that the opinions being expressed here are diametrically opposed.

It is possible for people to just have essentially incompatible opinions, you know. Why devalue that? If we've got a difference of opinion, let's fire away at it because eventually somebody will learn something, even if what they learn is merely the limits of their own sanity and patience.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#67 - 2013-01-10 20:43:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:

You, Mr. Stitcher and Cpt. Riordan might think to champion science here, but in fact you champion the ideology of scientism. I am all for science, but I'm opposed to scientism - for good reasons.


Your statement saddens me.

This is not scientism, this is populist anti theism. They are to scientism what Star Fraction are to transhumanism.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#68 - 2013-01-10 23:04:10 UTC
Scherezad wrote:
Captain Mithra;

I'm trying to grasp where the argument is going - it's moving quicker than my mind can follow, I fear. I'm afraid I'm still hung up on a point we were discussing awhile ago as I feel it's important.

Quote:
So, I fear I have to disappoint you, but there is, by necessity, no algorithm for choosing axioms. This doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable way to choose axioms though - it merely says that this way is fundamentally non-algorithmic.


Here is where I'm stuck. An algorithm is literally a 'way of doing things'. Claiming that there is a non-algorithmic method for choosing axioms is contradictory. I'm going to assume that this is a translation, error, though. Let me try again.

You hold certain axioms to be true. You claim that these axioms cannot be derived through the process of rationality. How, then, do you choose axioms from the infinite selections of axioms available, as Ms Riordan alluded to?

The argument is still where you're hung up, I assure you.

My point would be that an algorithm is a way of doing things, but not all ways of doing things are algorithmic. There is, though, indeed the problem that what an algorithm is is not as well defined as one would wish for. Usually I take an algorithm to be "a set of instructions that precisely define a sequence of operations that leads to the solution of a problem".
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#69 - 2013-01-10 23:17:13 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Scherezad wrote:
Captain Mithra;

I'm trying to grasp where the argument is going - it's moving quicker than my mind can follow, I fear. I'm afraid I'm still hung up on a point we were discussing awhile ago as I feel it's important.

Quote:
So, I fear I have to disappoint you, but there is, by necessity, no algorithm for choosing axioms. This doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable way to choose axioms though - it merely says that this way is fundamentally non-algorithmic.


Here is where I'm stuck. An algorithm is literally a 'way of doing things'. Claiming that there is a non-algorithmic method for choosing axioms is contradictory. I'm going to assume that this is a translation, error, though. Let me try again.

You hold certain axioms to be true. You claim that these axioms cannot be derived through the process of rationality. How, then, do you choose axioms from the infinite selections of axioms available, as Ms Riordan alluded to?

The argument is still where you're hung up, I assure you.

My point would be that an algorithm is a way of doing things, but not all ways of doing things are algorithmic. There is, though, indeed the problem that what an algorithm is is not as well defined as one would wish for. Usually I take an algorithm to be "a set of instructions that precisely define a sequence of operations that leads to the solution of a problem".


Galnetionary wrote:

Procedure that produces the answer to a question or the solution to a problem in a finite number of steps. An algorithm that produces a yes or no answer is called a decision procedure; one that leads to a solution is a computation procedure.


Care to elaborate upon this non-algorithmic way of determining valuable axioms you supposedly have?

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#70 - 2013-01-10 23:50:04 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
The argument is still where you're hung up, I assure you.

My point would be that an algorithm is a way of doing things, but not all ways of doing things are algorithmic. There is, though, indeed the problem that what an algorithm is is not as well defined as one would wish for. Usually I take an algorithm to be "a set of instructions that precisely define a sequence of operations that leads to the solution of a problem".


Ma'am, we aren't talking about the definition of the word 'algorithm', we're talking about the way we choose axioms. Let me reform the question without that word, and hopefully it will be more clear.

If you do not use rationality to decide on what your axioms are or are not, what method do you use to make that choice? You clearly do something, as you have accepted axioms. What do you do to determine whether an axiom is worthy of inclusion?
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#71 - 2013-01-12 12:05:36 UTC
Ah, my apologies, I got hung up on your remark about the algorithm.

Well, in answer to the question, I'd first like to point out that I make a distinction between rationality and reason: Rationality is a mode of reasoning providing optimal soulutions for achieving a goal or solving a problem. Thus rationality requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and the making of key assumptions - as I pointed out above.

Thus, the simple answer would be that I don't use rationality to decide what my axioms are or are not, but reason - non rational reason, to be specific, though that doesn't entirely rule rationality out - it may play a part but the point is that it alone isn't sufficent in the investigation.

A more content-rich answer is: By the method of philosophical inquiry. Philosophical inquiry by methodical doubt, argument, and dialectic (among other things) provides a way to form reasonable opinions on how to answer fundamental problems. While usually no one solution, that is brought forth in the process of such an inquiry, can be singled out as the solution to a problem, more often than not proposed solutions can be discarded. It is unreasonable to choose one of the discarded options, but to take the stance of any position that couldn't be singled out is a reasonable option.

Which one you take does, honestly, depend on which conflicts least with your philosophical intuitions. One of the key points here is that you form your opinion after investigating the question at had - or at least to leave your opinion aside while investigating the question and to be prepared to cast it aside if it determined to be unreasonable. Also, of importance is that this process though isn't one that is giving you a clear solution at the end. True philosophical inquiry is an ongoing process and has no real end. It is thus an activity in/of freedom.