Author Topic: reason rally 2016 Washington DC  (Read 5389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17304
  • Darwins +351/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« on: March 08, 2016, 06:59:42 AM »
the first RR was held a handful (or more) years ago in DC.   It's back this June at the Lincoln memorial with a nice list of guests and events.  Info can be found here:  http://reasonrally.org/


"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2016, 03:54:24 PM »
On my bucketbucket list.

Dam the site features  a wimins as a key speaker, feminine touch??
« Last Edit: March 08, 2016, 03:56:36 PM by eh! »
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3593
  • Darwins +477/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2016, 09:43:16 AM »
I attended the first one with my son, almost on a whim, TBH. I've been out on the East Coast several times in the last few months - my BF's employer is located in Massachusetts, and we're considering relocating for a few years, so we've been looking around. I've made it a point to suggest trying to arrange a trip out there that includes this weekend, and will attend if I can pull it all together.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Darwins +40/-152
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2016, 11:52:47 AM »
Interesting. A reason rally.

Just curious...how does a non-theist (scientifically speaking since that seems to be of utmost importance at the Reason Rally) account for the ability to reason? Does the ability to reason not necessitate an element of free will? Who decides what is reasonable and how do you know it is a reliable conclusion based on reasoning??

Also, the Reason Rally website indicates that "public policy should be based on scientific evidence" and uses climate change as an example. So, what do you do with scientists who disagree with climate change?


Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3593
  • Darwins +477/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2016, 12:38:18 PM »
You could always try coming to the rally to find out for yourself.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Darwins +40/-152
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2016, 01:08:40 PM »
I don't think it would be a wise use of time for anyone to go and listen to speakers who claim to use reason when there is no non-theistic evidence for the existence or reliability of reason. I mean, I don't think I could take seriously someone who uses science as the basis for their arguments when the scientific method hasn't even been employed to provide data evidencing science as thee source for determining sound public policy? It's a position based on presuppositions and is self-refuting from the get-go. 

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2016, 01:12:26 PM »
Interesting. A reason rally.

Just curious...how does a non-theist (scientifically speaking since that seems to be of utmost importance at the Reason Rally) account for the ability to reason? Does the ability to reason not necessitate an element of free will? Who decides what is reasonable and how do you know it is a reliable conclusion based on reasoning??

Also, the Reason Rally website indicates that "public policy should be based on scientific evidence" and uses climate change as an example. So, what do you do with scientists who disagree with climate change?

I won't get into the free will argument. That sets off too many people around here.

But science, when necessary, comes up with a consensus, which is considered 90% or more of any polled group of qualified scientists on any given subject (hopefully not english scientists asked about my grammar.) If, as in the case of climate change, that large a percentage or greater of scientists qualified in the field agree about it, then there is consensus.

The last I heard, the percentage that agrees about the existence of climate change averages (depending on the specific question) around 97%.

I know that isn't enough for you, but it works for us.

What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2016, 01:14:01 PM »
I don't think it would be a wise use of time for anyone to go and listen to speakers who claim to use reason when there is no non-theistic evidence for the existence or reliability of reason. I mean, I don't think I could take seriously someone who uses science as the basis for their arguments when the scientific method hasn't even been employed to provide data evidencing science as thee source for determining sound public policy? It's a position based on presuppositions and is self-refuting from the get-go.

We tried using religion to get us to the Moon and Mars and to take big pictures of the universe and dive deep into the oceans and make medicines to treat things and all we got was excuses. So we went with science, and, assuming you're sitting in front of a computer right now, not provided by Jesus, here we are.
What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Darwins +40/-152
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2016, 01:29:57 PM »
I won't get into the free will argument. That sets off too many people around here.

But science, when necessary, comes up with a consensus, which is considered 90% or more of any polled group of qualified scientists on any given subject (hopefully not english scientists asked about my grammar.) If, as in the case of climate change, that large a percentage or greater of scientists qualified in the field agree about it, then there is consensus.

The last I heard, the percentage that agrees about the existence of climate change averages (depending on the specific question) around 97%.

I know that isn't enough for you, but it works for us.

All I'll say to this is that I find it interesting that, in this instance, a consensus has the power to dictate public policy.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Darwins +40/-152
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2016, 01:41:53 PM »
We tried using religion to get us to the Moon and Mars and to take big pictures of the universe and dive deep into the oceans and make medicines to treat things and all we got was excuses. So we went with science, and, assuming you're sitting in front of a computer right now, not provided by Jesus, here we are.

That really doesn't answer the question.....but if you are comfortable basing your life's decisions and your stance on various public issues on something you cannot validate then I find it difficult to buy into your brand of thinking....and, rightfully, so should others.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3593
  • Darwins +477/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2016, 01:47:32 PM »
<snip> if you are comfortable basing your life's decisions and your stance on various public issues on something you cannot validate then I find it difficult to buy into your brand of thinking....and, rightfully, so should others.
Very nearly spit soda at my keyboard laughing at this.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2016, 01:49:38 PM »
All I'll say to this is that I find it interesting that, in this instance, a consensus has the power to dictate public policy.

Most of public policy is decided by far fewer people, so I'd think you'd appreciate the fairness of such a consensus. But then again, you're used to being told what to do by one invisible buy, so it is probably hard to adjust to visible stuff where you have a say in things. Note how you're free to complain about a consensus, but not the ten commandments. Its a different world.

What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • This space for rent
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2016, 01:51:37 PM »
<snip> if you are comfortable basing your life's decisions and your stance on various public issues on something you cannot validate then I find it difficult to buy into your brand of thinking....and, rightfully, so should others.
Very nearly spit soda at my keyboard laughing at this.

Me too. I almost spit my soda all over Jag's feet. So embarrassing.  ;D

We validate things by our standards, just as you believe in JC by your standards. If one of us is horribly wrong, so be it.
What I lack in sophistication I make up for with other shortcomings.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8850
  • Darwins +1115/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2016, 02:05:48 PM »
I don't think it would be a wise use of time for anyone to go and listen to speakers who claim to use reason when there is no non-theistic evidence for the existence or reliability of reason. I mean, I don't think I could take seriously someone who uses science as the basis for their arguments when the scientific method hasn't even been employed to provide data evidencing science as thee source for determining sound public policy? It's a position based on presuppositions and is self-refuting from the get-go.
Your argument describes your own position far more accurately than it does those who you're addressing it to.  You're so caught up in your own beliefs that you don't even recognize the fallacy you're committing by relying on them to explain things which you believe science cannot explain.  For example, you talk about how there's no non-theistic evidence for the existence or reliability of reason[1]...but completely ignored the fact that there is certainly no theistic evidence for it.  All you have to back that up is sacred stories used to justify worship, but in order to do that, you have to ignore the fact that every other religious tradition has similar sacred stories which are also used to justify worship.

There are many things which science cannot currently explain, but I find that to be much more reassuring than religions like Christianity which give answers that ultimately boil down to "God did it".  Because admitting that there's no known explanation creates room for someone to work on it and attempt to work out an explanation that fits the facts.  That not only doesn't happen with religions like Christianity, it cannot happen with them, because once you've said that a god is responsible, you cannot later come up with a better answer without diminishing the god in question.  Even if you then try to assign the better answer to the god, the god is still diminished because the better answer is more precise and puts limitations on how the god can have done it.

To put it another way, I can trust science more than any god.  If science gets something wrong, then it learns something and becomes stronger.  But if a god gets something wrong, it loses worshipers - either figuratively, when they lose faith, or literally, when they die as a result.  So a god can only become weaker through its mistakes.  Therefore it doesn't matter how strong you believe the god is - eventually science will surpass it, assuming it ever existed to be surpassed to begin with.

I'm not going to waste time arguing about this with you, BibleStudent.  You've already drawn your line in the sand, and I've already moved past it.  Your belief won't change the reality of things at all, it will simply hold you back from recognizing that reality.  Arguing with you at this point won't change anything and it'll waste energy I could better spend elsewhere.  It would be different if you could support your beliefs with evidence, but all you can do is claim that your god explains everything, which makes him useless for explaining anything.  You know how you can cancel variables out in math?  Explanations work the same way; you have to constrain the explanation, otherwise it will only cancel itself out, much like the mistakes known as phlogiston and elan vital.
 1. even though there is, such as how we can make computers that use an artificial form of reasoning to do things
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Darwins +40/-152
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2016, 02:10:58 PM »
<snip> if you are comfortable basing your life's decisions and your stance on various public issues on something you cannot validate then I find it difficult to buy into your brand of thinking....and, rightfully, so should others.
Very nearly spit soda at my keyboard laughing at this.

Me too. I almost spit my soda all over Jag's feet. So embarrassing.  ;D

We validate things by our standards, just as you believe in JC by your standards. If one of us is horribly wrong, so be it.

What standards?....and how do you know those standards are the best ones or the right ones? What is your source for determining that?

Hopefully you realize that for the reasons you laugh at me, you are, in effect, laughing at yourselves, too. Can you demonstrate that your faith in science is somehow different than my faith in God? Demonstrate to me that science (ie. scientific method) does not use philosophical presuppositions in order to render it valid.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Darwins +40/-152
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2016, 02:29:25 PM »
Your argument describes your own position far more accurately than it does those who you're addressing it to.  You're so caught up in your own beliefs that you don't even recognize the fallacy you're committing by relying on them to explain things which you believe science cannot explain.  For example, you talk about how there's no non-theistic evidence for the existence or reliability of reason[1]...but completely ignored the fact that there is certainly no theistic evidence for it.  All you have to back that up is sacred stories used to justify worship, but in order to do that, you have to ignore the fact that every other religious tradition has similar sacred stories which are also used to justify worship.
 1. even though there is, such as how we can make computers that use an artificial form of reasoning to do things

I'll take this as an admission that you recognize the similar weakness of your own worldview position.

Quote
There are many things which science cannot currently explain

That's not the point...at all. The point is how do you know that science is a valid means of explaining the actual extent of reality? Have you somehow tested science to determine that? If not, then why do you give science a pass? In effect, you are allowing for the philosophical presuppositions behind your position without knowing if they are accurate or not. In other words, you have faith that they are.


Quote
, but I find that to be much more reassuring than religions like Christianity which give answers that ultimately boil down to "God did it".  Because admitting that there's no known explanation creates room for someone to work on it and attempt to work out an explanation that fits the facts.  That not only doesn't happen with religions like Christianity, it cannot happen with them, because once you've said that a god is responsible, you cannot later come up with a better answer without diminishing the god in question.  Even if you then try to assign the better answer to the god, the god is still diminished because the better answer is more precise and puts limitations on how the god can have done it.

That's your choice. No harm....except when you attempt to use your faith in science as a means for overcoming my faith and my voice on public policy.

Quote
I'm not going to waste time arguing about this with you, BibleStudent.

Okay. I don't what to say about that.

Quote
  You've already drawn your line in the sand, and I've already moved past it.  Your belief won't change the reality of things at all, it will simply hold you back from recognizing that reality.  Arguing with you at this point won't change anything and it'll waste energy I could better spend elsewhere.  It would be different if you could support your beliefs with evidence, but all you can do is claim that your god explains everything, which makes him useless for explaining anything.  You know how you can cancel variables out in math?  Explanations work the same way; you have to constrain the explanation, otherwise it will only cancel itself out, much like the mistakes known as phlogiston and elan vital.

Interesting how you cloud the issue (probably unknowingly) by introducing God when I never even mentioned Him. Leave God out of it and just demonstrate why I should accept science as the sole source of knowledge about our reality? What tests were run to determine that? This thread was started to pass along information about a Reason Rally that wants to use science to squash religious influence on society. Why should I believe that your faith (and the faith of others) in science should have that kind of influence?
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 02:31:05 PM by BibleStudent »

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14151
  • Darwins +474/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2016, 02:41:05 PM »
Just curious...how does a non-theist (scientifically speaking since that seems to be of utmost importance at the Reason Rally) account for the ability to reason?

Probably the same way an honest theist would.

Does the ability to reason not necessitate an element of free will?

No; why would it?

Who decides what is reasonable and how do you know it is a reliable conclusion based on reasoning??

"Who"?  The "who" is anyone who's making a judgment (they can be wrong about it, too).  The "how" involves understanding how reason/logic works.  Have you considered delving into such a subject yourself?

Also, the Reason Rally website indicates that "public policy should be based on scientific evidence" and uses climate change as an example. So, what do you do with scientists who disagree with climate change?

We ask them for their evidence, of course.  "Scientific evidence" =|= "views of scientists" though the former does in most cases inform the latter.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Darwins +40/-152
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2016, 03:16:09 PM »
Just curious...how does a non-theist (scientifically speaking since that seems to be of utmost importance at the Reason Rally) account for the ability to reason?

Probably the same way an honest theist would.

A theist believes that God gifted us with a mind to reason with. Where did the non-theist ability to reason come from and how is it determined if that reasoning is capable of establishing what public policy should be? What leads you to believe that your ability to reason based on scientific evidence is the proper means for determining public policy?...or do you just assume that it is?

Quote
Does the ability to reason not necessitate an element of free will?

No; why would it?

Let me rephrase that. If you have a certain belief relative to public policy, is it because you weighed the evidence and made a decision or is it because you examined the evidence and your brain fired off an involuntary response?

Quote
Who decides what is reasonable and how do you know it is a reliable conclusion based on reasoning??

"Who"?  The "who" is anyone who's making a judgment (they can be wrong about it, too).  The "how" involves understanding how reason/logic works.  Have you considered delving into such a subject yourself?

If the "who" is anyone who makes a judgment and they could be wrong about it, then why would any group assemble to diminish the judgment of others?

The question is not related to knowing how reason/logic works. I am asking how it can be known via science that it is a real thing that can be relied upon.

Quote
Also, the Reason Rally website indicates that "public policy should be based on scientific evidence" and uses climate change as an example. So, what do you do with scientists who disagree with climate change?

We ask them for their evidence, of course.  "Scientific evidence" =|= "views of scientists" though the former does in most cases inform the latter.

And what if these scientists who find no evidence of climate change vehemently defend their "views" with scientific evidence? Is it somehow determined to be unscientific and irrelevant to public policy debate? The Reason Rally seems to think that public policy should be formed around science but some of the science says climate change is not all it's cracked up to be. So, does that science  become pseudo-science or irrelevant?...or, do we do like Pp suggested and use consensus?

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14452
  • Darwins +585/-61
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2016, 03:21:38 PM »
Keep scurrying down those fallacious holes, BibleStudent. Your attempts at deflecting self-analysis are not blatant at all.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Darwins +40/-152
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2016, 03:27:47 PM »
Keep scurrying down those fallacious holes, BibleStudent. Your attempts at deflecting self-analysis are not blatant at all.

What fallacious holes are you referring to?

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14151
  • Darwins +474/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2016, 03:40:08 PM »
A theist believes that God gifted us with a mind to reason with. Where did the non-theist ability to reason come from and how is it determined if that reasoning is capable of establishing what public policy should be? What leads you to believe that your ability to reason based on scientific evidence is the proper means for determining public policy?...or do you just assume that it is?

"God did it" doesn't account for the ability to reason.  It suggests an answer as to who, not how.  As for "how", an honest theist can make the same observations about human beings and their brains that anyone else can, and come to the same conclusions about how it's able to reason.  Which is what you asked.

Let me rephrase that. If you have a certain belief relative to public policy, is it because you weighed the evidence and made a decision or is it because you examined the evidence and your brain fired off an involuntary response?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.  The second option articulates a mechanism for how the first would work; they are not mutually exclusive, so why are you asking this?

If the "who" is anyone who makes a judgment and they could be wrong about it, then why would any group assemble to diminish the judgment of others?

Because not all "coulds" are equal.  And because the judgment of those who don't think they could be wrong are worth diminishing on those grounds alone; such people are not using reason.

The question is not related to knowing how reason/logic works. I am asking how it can be known via science that it is a real thing that can be relied upon.

So it's sort of a, "how do we know this isn't just a dream" question?  A, "how do we know reality is coherent" sort of question?  That's not one that science can answer; science cannot, for example, offer you proof that your memories reflect an actual past and weren't put there directly by a demon.

And what if these scientists who find no evidence of climate change vehemently defend their "views" with scientific evidence?

If it's valid, then it should be taken into account.  That's the rational thing to do, anyway.

Is it somehow determined to be unscientific and irrelevant to public policy debate? The Reason Rally seems to think that public policy should be formed around science but some of the science says climate change is not all it's cracked up to be. So, does that science  become pseudo-science or irrelevant?...or, do we do like Pp suggested and use consensus?

The "science" in question, in this case, has already been evaluated.  It's sort of like how one treats people who vehemently go off about chemtrails.  How would you treat people who tout "scientific" evidence for chemtrails, BS?
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2016, 04:11:47 PM »
Science works. Religion doesn't. That is why societies that use science to explain things live longer, are healthier, keep babies alive better, have fewer social problems, etc. when compared to societies that use religion to explain things. That is the evidence.

The past 5,000 years or so have been a controlled study comparing science and religion. Religion lost. You can measure any factor you like, and science beats religion hands down. People can ignore religion and god and magic and whatever supernatural stuff you want, and still have better lives, if they use science.

Smallpox defied all prayers and sacrifices. No religion was ever able to defeat it. People suffered and died of it for thousands of years. But then we began to apply science. Nobody has to "believe in" smallpox vaccinations, or understand the philosophical basis for why they work. We used science and, and now there is no more smallpox epidemic. Same thing with the plague, leprosy, lots of diseases. Religion failed, time and again. Science succeeded. Maybe it is just a coincidence. Or maybe some god is hiding and making the religions fail and the science work. But there are the facts for anyone to observe.

Adding a particular religion to a society that does not have science makes no improvements in life span, health status, etc. Adding science makes a huge difference, no matter what religion people believe in. That is the proof.

If you do not agree, BS, you are free to pray over your hands for a few weeks to the deity of your choice instead of washing them in clean water as suggested by godless science. Use the toilet, prepare food, work on your car. Report your results. I will wash my hands in clean water and ignore all dieties. And report my results. That is called science.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 04:16:07 PM by nogodsforme »
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4908
  • Darwins +1054/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2016, 04:17:07 PM »
And what if these scientists who find no evidence of climate change vehemently defend their "views" with scientific evidence?

Then someone will play the repeatability card.  If Captain Vehemently Defend's views are actually in accordance with reality, then attempts to repeat the results that Captain Vehemently Defend found should succeed.  If Captain Vehemently Defend's views are not actually in accordance with reality, then attempts to repeat the results that Captain Vehemently Defend found should fail.

Pons and Fleischmann can tell you all about it.

Remember - it is certainly possible to bullshit your way through science, to some degree.  But science has a habit of declaring "reality works this way," and since we all occupy the same shared reality, we can all ask reality if what Captain Vehemently Defend says about it is actually true or not.  Captain Vehemently Defend can hold the view that doping silicon with neon will increase transistor switching speed to the petahertz range, but if doping silicon with neon doesn't actually result in increased transistor switching speeds, then we get to say that his view is wrong.

If Captain Vehemently Defend's evidence is falsified - that is, if his results were borne from him manually tweaking numbers in contrast to being borne from actual measurements or from actual data, then someone trying to repeat his results will notice that.  It's not like the person who is trying to repeat Captain Vehemently Defend's results will suddenly end up with results that match up with Captain Vehemently Defend's desires for what the results are.''

But maybe I'm just completely misunderstanding your question.  Honestly, it's written a little weird.  I'm just not sure how someone can vehemently defend something with evidence they couldn't find.  That's...weird.  I mean, the religious do that a lot.  You guys have a pretty weird habit of accepting "can't prove it ain't" epistemology, which, well, I wouldn't recommend if one of your goals is actual truth-seeking.  I'm guessing you have an example of a scientist vehemently defending their view regarding climate change with scientific evidence they don't have - so spill it.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4908
  • Darwins +1054/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2016, 04:29:27 PM »
Science works.

BibleStudent, I am curious:
Do you realize just how much stuff has to happen between you pushing 'Post' and one of us actually reading what you've posted?  How many different 'thingies' are involved?

It's just a different way for you to look at it is all: sure, you could continually ask "how do we know this shit is reliable[1].  Alternatively, you could simply ask "is reason and logic reliable for making predictions on how reality behaves?"

We reason and logic'd our way from knowing that certain fish give us tingly feelings when we piss them off to being able to fabricate, with high yield, tiny little chunks of silicon smaller than 1 sq. inch containing billions of little doped transistor thingies that we have enough confidence in their behavior that we can chain lots and lots and lots of these little dudes together and write software around them and launch satellites into space that continually fall-yet-never actually hit the ground...
...seriously, BibleStudent, I really don't think you appreciate just how much knowledge is required to get your little posts across the continent available to billions of people to view in the span of seconds, with the level of reliability of repeatable results such that you will, without thinking to hard about it, simply trust that you hitting 'Post' will send the magical bits thousands of miles across the globe bouncing of hundreds of different little machines.

Reason and logic have an empirically verifiable track record.  If the the technology that you use everyday is not sufficient to convince you that reason and logic at least seem to produce actual results, frankly, I think that is primarily a function of you not having any understanding of the technology that you're using.  Which is kinda fine, by the by - shit is complicated, and we kinda live in a world where division of knowledge and division of expertise are pretty necessary, so it's hard to expect someone to have a minimal working knowledge of a lot of technology.  But I recommend you look into it.  You seem to have no clue just how far reason and logic have taken us as a society.
 1. Reliable for what?  When talking about reliability, one generally has more information than just asking "is it reliable?"  There is usually some context to help provide sufficient information for someone to actually make an evaluation as to whether or not something is 'reliable'.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17304
  • Darwins +351/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2016, 05:02:00 PM »
Interesting. A reason rally.

Just curious...how does a non-theist (scientifically speaking since that seems to be of utmost importance at the Reason Rally) account for the ability to reason? Does the ability to reason not necessitate an element of free will? Who decides what is reasonable and how do you know it is a reliable conclusion based on reasoning??

Also, the Reason Rally website indicates that "public policy should be based on scientific evidence" and uses climate change as an example. So, what do you do with scientists who disagree with climate change?

hmmm, BS has slunk back.   So, BS, which scientists disagree with climate change?  Any names?  Any evidence that supports their claims?   

and plenty of theists come to the RR, they agree that their religion shouldn't be forced on others and don't agree that their religion has to be based on lies. 

Quote
Why should I believe that your faith (and the faith of others) in science should have that kind of influence?
because you are a hypocrite and use the fruits of science all of the time.  It gives the right answers, and you benefit from that. 

Quote

And what if these scientists who find no evidence of climate change vehemently defend their "views" with scientific evidence?

still waiting for that.  Just like we've still been waiting for the liars at Disco'tute and ICR to show the evidence that they've been promising for the last 30 years.

Quote
Demonstrate to me that science (ie. scientific method) does not use philosophical presuppositions in order to render it valid.

You've made the positive claim that it does.  Show this claim is true.  I do expect lots of examples.     
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 05:18:09 PM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2016, 06:29:38 PM »
Yeah, it seems that the whole "repeatability" bugaboo and that nitpicky "show your work standard" pounded into us back in middle school still whomp the daylights out of pseudoscience and woo woo and "belief" and "faith". When those climate change denial people and the intelligent design people have to play by the same standards as real scientists, they can never show results.

That is why they prefer one-sided web pages, "debates" in front of lay audiences, "textbooks" that no mainstream high school or college would use and "documentary films" showing how mean real scientists and academics are. Otherwise they might have to do actual research (where they count all the hits and all the misses), presenting their work in front of experts at conferences, and publishing their results in peer reviewed journals like those mean real scientists have to do.

I do not need to have "faith" that if I wash my hands in clean water after I use the toilet, I will be less likely to get intestinal parasites. I have lived in places where the water was not clean. I got intestinal parasites. So did lots of other people. They relied heavily on religious faith, BTW. And got sick and died a lot from stuff that is easily treatable and curable. In places where the water is clean, and there is scientific medicine (regardless of religion) people do not get intestinal parasites or get sick and die a lot from stuff that is easily treatable and curable.

Just look at some life expectancy data. Compare rational atheist Sweden and safe, sensible, non-Christian Japan (both places where people live into their 90's and hardly any babies die) with Catholic Mexico, Protestant Uganda or multiple god-worshipping Haiti and India.  Uganda has lots of Christianity but very little science, and over 100 children of every 1000 die before age 5. Japan has lots of science and hardly any Christianity, and the number of little children who die is less than 5 of every 1000. Put your contaminated holy Ganges water where your mouth is, BS. Where would you rather be a mom with a newborn baby? Willing to gamble a 20 times higher chance of your baby dying to prove that religion is better than science?

Science works. Religion doesn't. Look at the numbers. Why is this even up for debate?  :-\
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 06:33:46 PM by nogodsforme »
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8850
  • Darwins +1115/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2016, 07:09:53 PM »
I'm not taking your bait, BibleStudent, especially since your post is a transparent attempt to, once again, try to put science and your religious beliefs on the same level.  Although, I will say that the whole point of science is that people don't assume they know things they don't.  If you want to consider that a weakness, that's your business.  Personally, I consider it a strength.  There's a real power in being able to simply say, "I don't know, so let's try and find out."  Science by its very nature doesn't require certainty, and therefore can bend.  Your faith does; among other things, the certainty that your god exists, and that your religion has the details right, which makes it very rigid.  That's why trying to put the two on the same level doesn't work and has never worked.

Faith is rigid and breaks if it is stressed too hard, but science is flexible and can easily bend with whatever stresses come its way.  That's why even the likes of humans have managed to accomplish astonishing things with it.  Things which no religion has ever managed to accomplish, even with gods backing them.  That alone makes it clear which is stronger.

That's all I have to say to you.  As I pointed out earlier, I have no interest in someone who's drawn a line in the sand and thinks that he can provoke people into coming to him in order to contest it.  It was really easy to tell, too, since you poked your nose into a discussion about a rally you had no intention of ever visiting so you could attempt to shill for your beliefs once again.  But it's easy to deal with someone who's drawn a line in the sand - ignore him and walk around.

I suggest, for the benefit of the other participants in the thread, that we go back to the actual subject.  I, for one, confess to finding myself curious as to how this reason rally works and what goes on in it.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2016, 09:27:29 PM »
I would like to go to a Reason Rally someday-- maybe as a speaker or panelist, promoting my best-selling atheist book?  :laugh:

A dream, to be sure, since I have not finished the book. And coming out of the woodwork as an atheist may not be a good move if Trump or Cruz wins the presidency....got to protect the family. :P

But it would be cool to go and be in a big crowd of people who are not religious for a change. It is not prejudice against theists. It is always being outnumbered and having to watch what I say. It is like living on a strange planet sometimes, surrounded by people who see the world so differently. People who think there are invisible supernatural forces buffeting us all and pulling us this way and that. In spite of there being zero evidence that such forces exist. And all the evidence we do have says that it is natural forces that make the world operate the way it does, not gods or demons.

I would compare it to growing up black in the US, always and forever a minority with white folks running the important institutions. Just the way it is, when you get to the top of any organization with money or power, like major universities, corporations, etc. it is mainly or only white folks in the room. Black people clustered in the middle and at the bottom. It can be hard to see where you fit into that scenario.

Then I went to live in an African country. It was a revelation to think about the fact that at top of every business, university, powerful organization, etc. there would be a black person. It really changed how I saw the world and my place in it. It is hard to describe what it felt like to know that the smartest person, the dumbest person, the richest person, the poorest person, the most evil person, and the nicest person were all black. It gave me a feeling of freedom that I was no longer as constrained mentally by US history or my family background or any of that sh!t. I could be whatever.

I imagine that would be a bit like being in a country where most everyone was an atheist. Imagine no political leaders calling on supernatural forces to help families in a disaster. Imagine no prayer breakfasts with religious leaders in the White House, or national days of prayer, or faith based government programs. No religious "alternatives" to the scientific perspective on climate or vaccinations. No friends and relatives asking me to pray for them or offering to pray for me. No signs or billboards asking me to consider my eternal fate or telling me I should be grateful for someone mythical dying for me.

Gotta go visit Iceland or New Zealand or some place like that.....  :D
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17304
  • Darwins +351/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: reason rally 2016 Washington DC
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2016, 06:23:38 AM »
the rally is essentially like any gathering by a group on the national mall.  Speakers, music, meeting people.  the day before they have arranged for anyone who wants to go to the capitol to speak to their representatives and senators.  there's a couple of parties Saturday night and a small conference on Sunday. 

Last time, it was decent in the morning and then got rainy the afternoon.  Never saw so many portapotties.  You could get swag at a couple of tents set up.  We took a blanket to sit on, water to drink and snacks.  This year, as a bday present to myself, we are staying overnight saturday at one of the Kimpton hotels in DC, a nicely liberal chain that doesn't put holy books in rooms (you can ask for them at the desk) and they are pet friendly (our cat would not appreciate this.

Last time it was right in the mall, very near the Smithsonian "castle".  Now its by the Lincoln Memorial.  I haven't been in that area since my senior trip to DC.  This is where the Vietnam Memorial is, the Korean Memorial, MLK memorial, etc.  https://www.nps.gov/nama/planyourvisit/maps.htm 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 06:27:12 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/