Date: August 09, 2019 04:06PM
It's not acquiescence, Henry, it's fatigue. Most of your assertions are absurd mischaracterizations over which few want to waste time and energy.
COMMENT: "Fatigue?" I rarely post here. Yet, you post daily and often at great length challenging everything you do not agree with long diatribes. But now with me its fatigue. Sorry, I am not buying it.
Response? Okay, done quickly and without a lot of thought.
First, let's get clear about what a "myth" is in the context of my comments. For my purposes, a "myth" is a belief within some community that is widely believed to be true within that community without sufficient evidence to support such a belief. That is essentially what I have in mind. It is not the only definition, obviously.
So, here is my response to you:
"16 is just stupid. You characterize things as myths and then say it is a myth not to accept your conclusion. What does one say to that?"
COMMENT: Everything on the list meets my definition of myth. 16 is a catch-all offered mostly as a joke. However circular (which I, of course admit) it would not be surprising for someone (like you) to claim that my assertions themselves taken together as a postulate were in some sense mythical. But, again, this was obviously a "catch-all" joke, which was not intended to stand on its own.
15 is likewise fatuous. No one thinks all of the above can only be understood logically: it is entirely possible that logic cannot get us to the answers of some questions. That does not mean, however, that illogic is a preferable epistemology.
COMMENT: Those who believe in these scientific "myths" most often *do* appeal to critical thinking as a justification, ala when Richard Dawkins insists that religious faith is per se irrational (#8)
9 is simply false.
COMMENT: Nice argument. But in fact there is no such thing as "*the* scientific method. Here is how Paul Feyerabend put it in his book Beyond Method:
"A scientist who is interested in maximal empirical content, and who wants to understand as many aspects of his theory as possible, will adopt a pluralistic methodology, he will compare theories with other theories rather than with 'experience,' 'data,' or 'facts,' and he will try to improve rather than discard the views that appear to lose in the competition. For the alternatives, which he needs to keep the context going, may be taken from the past as well. As a matter of fact, they may be taken from wherever one is able to find them - from ancient myths and modern prejudices; from the lucubrations of experts and from the fantasies of cranks. The whole history of a subject is utilized in the attempt to improve its most recent and most 'advanced' stage. The separation between the history of a science, its philosophy and the science itself dissolves into thin air and so does the separation between science and non-science."
In sort, there is no sacrosanct "scientific method" despite the fact that scientist like to think they are doing something special. There is, of course, experimentation. But that, of itself is not a unique scientific method, since we all do that. As physicist David Deutsch has said, science is about "explanation" more than experimentation.
1,2,3,4,5,6,11,12,13,and 14 are not "myth" or statements of fact. They are hypotheses to be tested empirically.
COMMENT: I cannot respond to this. These items are "taken as facts" by many scientists, even though NOT established empirically.
7 is silly because it is both true and false, just like relativity and quantum mechanics, systems that apply in extreme situations and hence are real but irrelevant in virtually all cases. There may not be fixed time if one can move faster than the speed of light, but no one can do that so it doesn't matter. If you want to deny that, go ahead. But you'd better put away your laptop since it works on the same principles you are calling "myths."
COMMENT: Scientists accept Einstein's theory of relativity which is notoriously mathematically associated with a "block universe." A block universe does not have "temporal order," i.e. a lived past present and future. So, at least this part of the theory is a "myth" science insists upon because it is quite obvious (at least it seems) that there *is* such a thing as temporal order. THat is why the universe is expanding 'in time." (See physicist Lee Smolin, Reinventing Time.)
So, what you are saying is "silly," apparently reflects your own ignorance about science.
8 is nonsensical because religion explicitly embraces irrationality as a tool for reaching truth. You can endorse it as an effective way of discovering reality, but you can't claim the mantle of rationality for a system that relies disproportionately on irrationality or supra-rationality.
COMMENT: Again, this is just false. There are thousands of theologians out there that earnestly strive to present religion in rational terms. Moreover, religious experiences and their interpretations are seen as personal, empiricl, and rational, not irrational. Irrationality is rarely seen as a virtue in mainstream religion. Rationality also encompasses effective decision-procedures in the face of lack of knowledge, which for some may well justify religious faith.
Have at it, Henry, but you'll find few people who want to follow you into a list of arbitrary assertions that you pulled out of your hat.
COMMENT: Why don't you focus on one signal item on the list and engage me in an extended debate on a separate thread, instead of throwing a bunch of ill-conceived mud at the wall hoping something will stick.