Open-mindedness

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Open-mindedness

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 01:22 am
YouTube - Open-mindedness

This video is brilliant

Everyone needs to see it

It's like a ten minute version of Demon-Haunted World

One of the high points is something I had never heard before is that invoking supernatural phenomena is self-contradictory: in effect you're saying that because you can't explain something, you can explain it

Never thought of that b4
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:28 am
@odenskrigare,
That doesn't seem right to me. If a person says that something cannot be explained scientifically, he isn't saying that it cannot be explained, so if he invokes the supernatural as an explanation he is not contradicting himself. He doesn't think that scientific explanations are the only explanation as the cartoon does. So, the cartoon (and you) are committing the fallacy of begging the question; of assuming what needs to be proved. That's not very open-minded, is it?
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;83997 wrote:
That doesn't seem right to me. If a person says that something cannot be explained scientifically, he isn't saying that it cannot be explained, so if he invokes the supernatural as an explanation he is not contradicting himself. He doesn't think that scientific explanations are the only explanation as the cartoon does. So, the cartoon (and you) are committing the fallacy of begging the question; of assuming what needs to be proved. That's not very open-minded, is it?
That seens to be right

Great cartoon, anyway =)
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 02:12 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;83997 wrote:
That doesn't seem right to me. If a person says that something cannot be explained scientifically, he isn't saying that it cannot be explained, so if he invokes the supernatural as an explanation he is not contradicting himself. He doesn't think that scientific explanations are the only explanation as the cartoon does. So, the cartoon (and you) are committing the fallacy of begging the question; of assuming what needs to be proved


Oh ok

I see

well I think the point the creator is making is that appealing to the supernatural = laziness
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 04:40 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;84124 wrote:
Oh ok

I see

well I think the point the creator is making is that appealing to the supernatural = laziness


Why?..............
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 04:50 pm
@odenskrigare,
Because you can just make up whatever you want

It's lazy

Goddidit answers are always lazy
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 05:51 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;84175 wrote:
Because you can just make up whatever you want

It's lazy

Goddidit answers are always lazy



I don't see the connection. If you say that God did it, then if it is not true, then you have made a mistake. Just as in the case of any other explanation.
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 06:04 pm
@odenskrigare,
how do we know when God does something

we don't

that's why Goddidit is lazy
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 08:26 pm
@odenskrigare,
Quote:
how do we know when God does something

we don't

that's why Goddidit is lazy


Well why not insist that god was not powerful enough to do it on his own, that creation required a bunch of gods?

The video is trying to point out that you can substitute anything you want that can't be readily known or understood. But to be honest we rarely ever do this, and it only seems when it comes to religion that we accept it as alright behavior. It is absurd but I can't make this statement without falling into the "too critical towards religion" category.

So lets explore this a little. If we didn't understand how the human heart worked, should we have just stopped at, "Little green men live inside your chest and the sound you hear is them beating their hammers against the mechanical pump machine."? No. This type of explanation wouldn't help us medically or for anything other than a good laugh, but yet religion is allowed to use this type of explanation tactic.
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 08:31 pm
@odenskrigare,
it does use it, but it shouldn't be allowed to

---------- Post added 08-19-2009 at 12:10 AM ----------

you already admitted religion is absurd

why hold yourself back
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 04:46 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;84124 wrote:
Oh ok

I see

well I think the point the creator is making is that appealing to the supernatural = laziness
I disagree, I think the point he is trying to make is that there is no "super-natural", everthing can be understood and become natural, and thus people should always study things scientifically rather than accepting super-natural notions. Kinda like: If you see a car floating around, all you know is that the car was floating and you dont know how, if you dont know how, you shouldnt assume it was ghosts, god, or anything from the like, nor the fact the car was floating can endorse such beliefs.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 04:57 pm
@manored,
manored;84392 wrote:
I disagree, I think the point he is trying to make is that there is no "super-natural", everthing can be understood and become natural, and thus people should always study things scientifically rather than accepting super-natural notions. Kinda like: If you see a car floating around, all you know is that the car was floating and you dont know how, if you dont know how, you shouldnt assume it was ghosts, god, or anything from the like, nor the fact the car was floating can endorse such beliefs.


That's right . . . it could be ALIEN TECHNOLOGY.

Like the car in "Repo Man."

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews20/a%20Alex%20Cox%20Repo%20Man%20Emilio%20Estevez%20DVD%20Review/a%20Alex%20Cox%20Repo%20Man%20Emilio%20Estevez%20DVD%20Review%20PDVD_015.jpg
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 05:11 pm
@manored,
manored;84392 wrote:
I disagree, I think the point he is trying to make is that there is no "super-natural", everthing can be understood and become natural, and thus people should always study things scientifically rather than accepting super-natural notions. Kinda like: If you see a car floating around, all you know is that the car was floating and you dont know how, if you dont know how, you shouldnt assume it was ghosts, god, or anything from the like, nor the fact the car was floating can endorse such beliefs.


you don't disagree with me, that's what I mean
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 05:18 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;84398 wrote:
you don't disagree with me, that's what I mean
Well, lazyness is not the only reason for that, it can also be raw stupidity, for example =)
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 05:37 pm
@odenskrigare,
oh yeah that's true cool idea bro
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 01:11 pm
@odenskrigare,
I would go further to say that when someone evokes the supernatural for an explanation, they are really often confusing themselves into thinking they have an explanation when really, they have said nothing about the event.

When person X say: 'A ghost moved my lamp', they are in effect saying 'something made my lamp move, I am certain it was a creature I know is an ontological possibility'

A creature is ontologically possible if and only if it is verifiable in principal. Furthermore; a creature is supernatural if and only if it is not verifiable, otherwise it is natural and has some measurable effect (sense data is measurable in terms of biochemistry). You can sense something if and only if it is natural and in the domain of science.

So if you claim that the creature was supernatural, or has no possible scientific explanation, your sentence automatically reduces to 'Something made my lamp move, I know that nothing did it'. This is a result of the confusion caused by language like 'supernatural being' which is a contradiction but does not seem like one to someone who is not well versed in science or they do not have a clear meaning behind what they say.

In short, supernatural claims are symptomatic of muddled or unclear thinking resulting in unclear communication. If you do not have a clear conception of a 'ghost', then saying 'a ghost did it' as some sort of final answer is essentially a contradiction.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 01:31 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;84534 wrote:
I would go further to say that when someone evokes the supernatural for an explanation, they are really often confusing themselves into thinking they have an explanation when really, they have said nothing about the event.

When person X say: 'A ghost moved my lamp', they are in effect saying 'something made my lamp move, I am certain it was a creature I know is an ontological possibility'

A creature is ontologically possible if and only if it is verifiable in principal. Furthermore; a creature is supernatural if and only if it is not verifiable, otherwise it is natural and has some measurable effect (sense data is measurable in terms of biochemistry). You can sense something if and only if it is natural and in the domain of science.

So if you claim that the creature was supernatural, or has no possible scientific explanation, your sentence automatically reduces to 'Something made my lamp move, I know that nothing did it'. This is a result of the confusion caused by language like 'supernatural being' which is a contradiction but does not seem like one to someone who is not well versed in science or they do not have a clear meaning behind what they say.

In short, supernatural claims are symptomatic of muddled or unclear thinking resulting in unclear communication. If you do not have a clear conception of a 'ghost', then saying 'a ghost did it' as some sort of final answer is essentially a contradiction.


But what if a person has a clear conception of a ghost?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 02:52 pm
@odenskrigare,
What is a "clear conception of a ghost"?

I feel a BS warning coming on.
 
William
 
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 02:56 pm
@odenskrigare,
I think he who is open-minded leaves all possibilities on the table and open for discussion until they can proven "positively" false. It is the attempt of the close-minded to close those open minds which the video is trying to do in offering the analogies it did. A very subtle ploy of those who think they know everything, IMO. There are phenomena that occur in this reality of which many experience, such as coincidences and prodigious savants that can more accurately be define as a different sensory perception, if not "extra", that differ's from what is commonly espoused. The close minded choose not to recognize those and totally ignore them for it would not appear to be intelligent in that others might consider them "dumb", to consider them. Yes, this is an assumption on my part, but I feel there is evidence to support it such as the video did in offering his definitions of open and close minded of which I think he tried to confuse the two. IMO.

William
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 02:57 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;84540 wrote:
But what if a person has a clear conception of a ghost?


Krumple;84557 wrote:
What is a "clear conception of a ghost"?

I feel a BS warning coming on.


It's sort of like an immaculate conception, but more transparent.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Open-mindedness
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.84 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:36:19