s1eep Posted June 26, 2015 Author Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) @reap I'm simply suggesting that finding presentable evidence is a slower method than finding partial evidence and doing rational guesswork. Edited June 26, 2015 by s1eep
Prometheus Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 What flavor is that of scientists? Apologies if I have caused some confusion here, the opposite of my intention. If you follow the Wikipedia link I gave you'll see there are several types ("flavours'') of nihilism. They can be very different: for instance if you refer to the type SwansonT mentioned, then existence itself is doubted, while another type only states that there is no inherent meaning imbued in the universe. I'm sure we can agree those are quite different propositions and would lead to different discussions. Would you like to discuss one of the above two types of nihilism, or a different one? As to the flavour of scientist do you mean physicists, chemists, biologists etc? 1
swansont Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 my evidence is that scientists present the world to people from one particular perspective, most without ever anointing the other perspectives or even demonizing them. Given that science has a particular perspective (that there is an objective reality that can be measured), why would this be surprising? It seems tautological.
Phi for All Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 Given that science has a particular perspective (that there is an objective reality that can be measured), why would this be surprising? It seems tautological. It seems s1eep is conflating an ab initio perspective with narrow-mindedness. And then he claims scientists "anoint" and "demonize", but somehow doesn't think THAT is narrow-minded.
s1eep Posted June 27, 2015 Author Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) Given that science has a particular perspective (that there is an objective reality that can be measured), why would this be surprising? It seems tautological. It's not surprising, I'd just like to acknowledge how they are being nihilistic. I came here to discuss it with experts, not to demonize anyone. I also want to know whether the 'other perspectives' are important or crucial to sustainable existence; things like civility, respect of life, etc. Edited June 27, 2015 by s1eep
Phi for All Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 It's not surprising, I'd just like to acknowledge how they are being nihilistic. And it seems only you think they are. And you haven't really shown that to anyone's satisfaction. There is an objective reality that can be measured. Please explain how that's a nihilistic perspective.
s1eep Posted June 27, 2015 Author Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) The only thing it suppresses is nonsense and ignorance. This nonsense and ignorance includes, envisioning the world non-scientifically, that's maybe up in flames, or perhaps as a utopia, things that aren't real. You can conceptualize it, you can visualize it in the near space; this is non-scientific. The nonsense side of things, can be just that, nonsense, but there are parts of creativity that are smart... If I imagine myself in the near space, I do not have to draw every circle or edge. Now I'm not saying this is true but I guess our creativity has evolved since we were in the sea; we can probably imagine more things, or the things we can imagine are effected by our environment, and we have a more exquisite environment ( there are many good-sounding theories that I don't know if are correct ). It's utility in itself, it helps to form ideas, it's free fun, and many of other things; scientific nihilism therefore is the neglect of creativity through covert 'set in stone' discrimination [ such as above ], followed by held in laughter, and being on the edge of the seats or more commonly perversity. I'm trying to be kind but you come at me with an angered tone because I don't agree with you - I'm not addressing moderation, by the way, just you. You're not being fair in any way, and you've been unfair for a while - this is not a complaint, be unfair. I find it annoying when you're critical about my writing, because it's not in the jest with the common view, even though there's nothing you can say to dismiss what I'm saying makes my ideas right; I'm not talking about the original topic, but prior ones, where people have claimed I have been 'challenged' - and what you're referring to with your angered tone. Maybe people have submissive mentalities because of scientific nihilism, it's in the people's nature to skim read my writing and pay attention to yours, weighting the discussion or debates in the favored direction, in this case the minority power. It's a case of "with power comes responsibility", yes we can do science but we should do it correctly, for it is dangerous at times, it causes death and destruction. You wouldn't tell your kids to touch a fire, so why would you go by the logic, nothing "should" be done? If you can't eat do you deserve to be in the minds of people, as a person, simply, a model of a person or someone who wasn't worthy? (Unless by illness for that must be luck; of course, I am saying by choice). At times things should be done. Edited June 27, 2015 by s1eep
iNow Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 I see basically four possibilities at this point: 1 - You don't properly understand/comprehend what science is. 2 - You don't properly understand/comprehend what nihilism is. 3 - You are trolling. 4 - Some combination of the above three.
s1eep Posted June 27, 2015 Author Posted June 27, 2015 I see basically four possibilities at this point: 1 - You don't properly understand/comprehend what science is. 2 - You don't properly understand/comprehend what nihilism is. 3 - You are trolling. 4 - Some combination of the above three. Now it's your turn to keep on topic, this is another time the people have yet to directly associate their words with what's been said, and instead attack the hypothetical 'what's been said' "What's been said is bad". lol.
swansont Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 It's not surprising, I'd just like to acknowledge how they are being nihilistic. How is the adoption of the scientific perspective nihilistic. The scientific perspective is something.
Prometheus Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 The only thing it suppresses is nonsense and ignorance. To be fair you do seem to misunderstand both science and nihilism. You seem to conflate science with dogma. Dogma is a human frailty; scientists are not immune. But the scientific method is a good vaccine against nonsense and ignorance, and is by far the best method for understanding how our universe works. You seem to think science is some lumbering institution which sets laws of nature in stone. Is this your perception? In terms of nihilism I still don't know what your talking about, but it doesn't seem to be nihilism, and since you don't seem to want to clarify your terms I'm not going to spend time trying to guess what you mean.
Delta1212 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Now it's your turn to keep on topic, this is another time the people have yet to directly associate their words with what's been said, and instead attack the hypothetical 'what's been said' "What's been said is bad". lol. Could you explain what exactly you think nihilism is? Because I've gotten the distinct impression from your posts so far that you don't really know.
s1eep Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 None of you responded to what I said directly, I'm still waiting for that... -1
Strange Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 None of you responded to what I said directly, I'm still waiting for that... Is this direct enough: Are scientists somewhat nihilistic, therefore? No.
s1eep Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Is this direct enough: No. The only thing it suppresses is nonsense and ignorance. This nonsense and ignorance includes, envisioning the world non-scientifically, that's maybe up in flames, or perhaps as a utopia, things that aren't real. You can conceptualize it, you can visualize it in the near space; this is non-scientific. The nonsense side of things, can be just that, nonsense, but there are parts of creativity that are smart... If I imagine myself in the near space, I do not have to draw every circle or edge. Now I'm not saying this is true but I guess our creativity has evolved since we were in the sea; we can probably imagine more things, or the things we can imagine are effected by our environment, and we have a more exquisite environment ( there are many good-sounding theories that I don't know if are correct ). It's utility in itself, it helps to form ideas, it's free fun, and many of other things; scientific nihilism therefore is the neglect of creativity through covert 'set in stone' discrimination [ such as above ], followed by held in laughter, and being on the edge of the seats or more commonly perversity. I'm trying to be kind but you come at me with an angered tone because I don't agree with you - I'm not addressing moderation, by the way, just you. You're not being fair in any way, and you've been unfair for a while - this is not a complaint, be unfair. I find it annoying when you're critical about my writing, because it's not in the jest with the common view, even though there's nothing you can say to dismiss what I'm saying makes my ideas right; I'm not talking about the original topic, but prior ones, where people have claimed I have been 'challenged' - and what you're referring to with your angered tone. Maybe people have submissive mentalities because of scientific nihilism, it's in the people's nature to skim read my writing and pay attention to yours, weighting the discussion or debates in the favored direction, in this case the minority power. It's a case of "with power comes responsibility", yes we can do science but we should do it correctly, for it is dangerous at times, it causes death and destruction. You wouldn't tell your kids to touch a fire, so why would you go by the logic, nothing "should" be done? If you can't eat do you deserve to be in the minds of people, as a person, simply, a model of a person or someone who wasn't worthy? (Unless by illness for that must be luck; of course, I am saying by choice). At times things should be done. Edited June 28, 2015 by s1eep
imatfaal Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) ! Moderator Note sleep In order for the thread to progress can I double check that It's {ie Creativity's} utility in itself, it helps to form ideas, it's free fun, and many of other things; scientific nihilism therefore is the neglect of creativity through covert 'set in stone' discrimination [ such as above ], followed by held in laughter, and being on the edge of the seats or more commonly perversity. encompasses your definition - with my clarification in {curly brackets} - of scientific nihilism for the purposes of this thread? If you wish to expand on that definition now is the time ... Edited June 28, 2015 by imatfaal all went strange for a while
s1eep Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) ! Moderator Note sleep In order for the thread to progress can I double check that encompasses your definition - with my clarification in {curly brackets} - of scientific nihilism for the purposes of this thread? If you wish to expand on that definition now is the time ... Yes. But to be more direct I think a scientists nihilism is more "Cupid can eat my shorts" as oppose to "down with Cupid". Though, because of reality, abominations can form. And this is also not excluding people of good reputation. I see a lot of "Cupid's Stupid" going about. Edited June 28, 2015 by s1eep
dimreepr Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Yes. But to be more direct I think a scientists nihilism is more "Cupid can eat my shorts" as oppose to "down with Cupid". Though, because of reality, abominations can form. And this is also not excluding people of good reputation. I see a lot of "Cupid's Stupid" going about. You should start a blog. 1
s1eep Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 You should start a blog. As people keep saying I would enjoy that but I don't think I'm at the right place to post ALL of my ideas ( I have tried ).
s1eep Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) There's a reason for that. I am definitely not soapboxing, which I why I keep asking for responses so that we can discuss. Though I want to be polite, I will not show my weakness for now, for that would be stupid {at this time}. Edited June 28, 2015 by s1eep
dimreepr Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 There's nothing to discus, your question has been answered many times. Just accept you can’t always be correct, believe me, you’ll feel better.
s1eep Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 There's nothing to discus, your question has been answered many times. Just accept you can’t always be correct, believe me, you’ll feel better. This is unacceptable in my mind, I can't accept it for the answer was low-effort. I have said tons already, all of which require a direct reply.
Delta1212 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 So... Scientific nihilism is the rejection of the existence of unscientific things?
Recommended Posts