Is There Life Elsewhere in the Universe? Is There a God?

[rabinovich]

OK then - life as we do not know it... yeah - all of the above...

funny jokes

Media doe snot exist independently - doe snot control/report etc independently. Outright falsity and fraud would be discovered (as it is not uniform either) - thus media has an intermediate role - and certainly has much power to influence and to direct - but in itself it is not the do all and end all - stories are written about actual people, entities and events - thus not all is fiction and the maleability is only by degree not in toto....

OK agreed makes sense: media is a powerful tool in the hands of whoever is in control.

[rabinovich]

...Beliefs or phenomena that are associated with not being explained by science therefore are not negated because they do not meet scientific criteria. The idea that a belief is absurd because it cannot be validated by science is itself an assumption on the range of absurdity, and we don't call that science, it's called scientism.

Are you confusing science with physics?
What about neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and all related fields? how are they related to your physical senses? You know senses are not the only tools used as a base for scientific method...

So, if your beliefs are explained (i.e. it is explained scientifically why did you end up with such and such beliefs) by the "brain-related" sciences, and by history and anthropology, then why should I think of them as something "out of the scope of science" and something inherently unprovable/undisprovable?

For me, if I can prove that your belief has a perfect historic and psychological explanation, it's "truth" value vanishes. It just isn't expressing a fact about the world, instead it's only a consequence of the environmental conditions you and your ancestors have been exposed to

[rabinovich]

OK then - life as we do not know it...

Life as in green little guys - most probably no, life as in complex evolving structures (without constraints on scale/material/binding forces) - most probably yes.

[Anonymouse]

Are you confusing science with physics?
What about neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and all related fields? how are they related to your physical senses? You know senses are not the only tools used as a base for scientific method...

So, if your beliefs are explained (i.e. it is explained scientifically why did you end up with such and such beliefs) by the "brain-related" sciences, and by history and anthropology, then why should I think of them as something "out of the scope of science" and something inherently unprovable/undisprovable?

For me, if I can prove that your belief has a perfect historic and psychological explanation, it's "truth" value vanishes. It just isn't expressing a fact about the world, instead it's only a consequence of the environmental conditions you and your ancestors have been exposed to

I speak of science within the context of metaphysics. I am not confusing anything.

Perhaps you are confusing what I am saying?

[rabinovich]

I speak of science within the context of metaphysics. I am not confusing anything.

Perhaps you are confusing what I am saying?

Not really. You are saying senses are the base of scientific discovery, therefore anything that cannot be sensed physically (or even physiologically) is not in the realm of science and cannot be proven/disproven.

And I am saying NO to that, because there ARE sciences that base not on senses but on 1. human mind / observer's own mind (which is directly observable to any human scientist and in principle does not require any external ports for information), 2. recorded history (which is a source of information we consider undisputed in this particular discussion), 3. observer's individual / social experience, 4. many other sources of information I forgot to mention here. Using such sources one can PROVE that certain beliefs originate under certain conditions and do not have a truth value in themselves (i.e. whether or not the fact is physically true or false, the belief originates in your mind), which nullifies those beliefs in my (and many other people's) eyes.

[rabinovich]

I speak of science within the context of metaphysics. I am not confusing anything.

Perhaps you are confusing what I am saying?

Plus, I don't think you answered any single thought in my post. If you don't answer the next post either, I will conclude that this discussion is pointless since I am being ignored.

[Anonymouse]

Plus, I don't think you answered any single thought in my post. If you don't answer the next post either, I will conclude that this discussion is pointless since I am being ignored.

Perhaps you should clarify what it is you want me to answer.

[rabinovich]

Perhaps you should clarify what it is you want me to answer.

Well when two people talk, one of them says "A", the other says "no, not A, because B", the first one normally either says
1: "oh yes, I didn't think of B, indeed not A", or
2: "yes, B, but there is also C, so still A", or
3: "how come B, if there is D? no, not B, and therefore still A"...

or along these lines

1 is called agreement
2, 3 are forms of disagreement

[Anonymouse]

Not really. You are saying senses are the base of scientific discovery, therefore anything that cannot be sensed physically (or even physiologically) is not in the realm of science and cannot be proven/disproven.

And I am saying NO to that, because there ARE sciences that base not on senses but on 1. human mind / observer's own mind (which is directly observable to any human scientist and in principle does not require any external ports for information), 2. recorded history (which is a source of information we consider undisputed in this particular discussion), 3. observer's individual / social experience, 4. many other sources of information I forgot to mention here. Using such sources one can PROVE that certain beliefs originate under certain conditions and do not have a truth value in themselves (i.e. whether or not the fact is physically true or false, the belief originates in your mind), which nullifies those beliefs in my (and many other people's) eyes.

Now we are dealing with an issue of semantics and ironically, belief. Some people would call psychonanalysis a science, others would not but I wasn't referring to that, and there are people who don't agree with it. Science in its strictest sense must conform to the scientific method. I am speaking of science in its original sense as understood by the scientific revolution and the scientific method. I am using the strictest possible definition of science and knowledge.

As a history major I will tell you that history is never considered "undisputed" and to claim so is childish. History is always disputed, and is always being revised because it is a process and is based on what Foucault observed as discourses based power relations of who does the speaking, who is spoken to and what is allowed to be spoken. I don't see what your point with this is unless you want to clarify without being vague.

[Anonymouse]

Well when two people talk, one of them says "A", the other says "no, not A, because B", the first one normally either says
1: "oh yes, I didn't think of B, indeed not A", or
2: "yes, B, but there is also C, so still A", or
3: "how come B, if there is D? no, not B, and therefore still A"...

or along these lines

1 is called agreement
2, 3 are forms of disagreement

Perhaps finals has really worn me out, but what is the point of this may I ask?