Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormons and Science


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

(A7) Any worldview no matter how primitive or sophisticated contain some measures to guard against (A2) and (A4) in the search for an accurate worldview that corresponds to reality.

I do not accept a correspondence theory of truth.

This is all jibberish. You have not answered any of my questions, and defined nothing. If you want to take this to the other gehenna board, so you can bring your cronies with you, I am game.

We can play this game all you want. Answer my questions so we are speaking the same language.

Link to comment

Wow. This really blows me away. I think simply the point is that, we have to believe in magic seer stones, divining rods and such that were commonly considered valid utensils in some areas of 19th century America but are not given credibility today and are viewed by the majority of the population as 19th century folk magic. As a Mormon believer you must believe in this stuff. LDS history tells us that the Prophet Joseph placed his rock in his hat and put his face in that hat and received the translation of the plates. Ergo, no seer stone, no Mormonism. Why are we running from this. Of course it's true.

Link to comment

I do not accept a correspondence theory of truth.

I'm sorry you don't think truth has any relation with reality.

This is all jibberish.

Thats a really neat way for you to dismiss everything.

You have not answered any of my questions

Yup, every question you posed thus far is answered in that argument.

and defined nothing.

(A1)-(A5) are not definitions?

If you want to take this to the other gehenna board, so you can bring your cronies with you, I am game.

Are you unsatisfied with this venue?

We can play this game all you want. Answer my questions so we are speaking the same language.

We are speaking the same language. You have everything you need to work with. Your only objection so far is to (A7) and it's a bit of a gem.

Link to comment

(A1) Evident correlation is the case that we have strong justification for believing that events X and Y happened at tN. Example being: X and Y both happened at t1,t3,t5 and t9

Define strong justification. Define events. We are talking about perceptions and experiences- where are the "events"?

(A2) non-evident correlation is the case that there are certain factors that diminish the strength of justification. Examples being: X did happen at t1,t3 and t5 but Y only may happened at t3 and t5.

And what "factors" would those be? And how is the undefined "justification" "diminished" and to what degree?

(A3) Probable causation is the case that we are able to draw strong inferences from a set of data and can give a reasonable explanation and defense of a probable cause for the correlation between events X and Y

Oh come on. "Probable cause"? Bring in the jury. How do you define that, and who gets to judge what is "probable"?

(A4) Improbable causation is the case that we are only able to draw weak or dubious inferences from a set of data and cannot give a reasonable explanation and defense of probable cause for the correlation between events X and Y.

"Weak" or "Dubious"? "Reasonable"? This is all inductive fuzzy logic! Correlations for undefined "events"! You could prove anything from this garbage!

(A5) Magical thinking is when we engage unknowingly in improbable causation or use non-evident correlation and draw conclusions from weak inferences and /or dubious evidence. Part of the non causa pro causa (non-cause for cause) fallacy family.

Oh good. So if I do it "knowingly" then it isn't "magic"? I frankly don't care who calls it "magic"- I just want to know what you are talking about and this leaves me nothing.

(A6) There are various definitions of magical thinking, but only definitions that entail ~(A5) can be consistently applied to Mormons as a whole.

I am waiting for a coherent definition.

?

(P1) If we have evident correlation and probable causation then we are not guilty of magical thinking

"Guilty"? Mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa Symbolize all you like, all we have is symbolic garbage which is undefined. It's like trying to machine butter to a ten-thousandth of an inch tolerances. The lack of precision in the definition makes the rest of it stupid.

You keep talking about causation as if you never read the articles you yourself posted. Honestly, I am about done with this. You just contradict yourself. You post articles about causation and how hard it is to establish, then you write this stuff that doesn't even define causation.

And if you post an answer on the other board and not here, you just show yourself to be unable to answer.

Honestly, your lack of ability to answer my question about what school of philosophy appeals most along with your apparent lack of understanding of the causation articles you posted shows me that you are really faking it here.

If we are going to have a serious discussion, we need to establish if we can even speak the same language instead of this speaking past each other.

If we can't establish that, there is no sense in wasting the time. "Magical thinking" is not a pejorative statement if you can't even define it.

I suppose you will go crying to your cronies on the other board about how irrational I am- be my guest.

?

Link to comment

Wow. This really blows me away. I think simply the point is that, we have to believe in magic seer stones, diving rods and such that were commonly considered valid utensils in some areas of 19th century America but are not given credibility today and are viewed by the majority of the population as 19th century folk magic. As a Mormon believer you must believe in this stuff. LDS history tells us that the Prophet Joseph placed his rock in his hat and put his face in that hat and received the translation of the plates. Ergo, no seer stone, no Mormonism. Why are we running from this. Of course it's true.

I have no problem with what you are saying. The point is that 3 toe is not presenting a coherent argument.

Spiritual experience is spiritual experience, and it is just as "valid" or invalid as dreams etc. I don't care how Joseph got his revelations- the point is he got them. If you want to call that "magical" or not I don't care.

I am just looking for a coherent argument which I have yet to see from this guy who thinks he is mister logic. Logic is just like math. You get bad data to start with, you can have perfect math and have results which are bad. It's the old "garbage in, garbage out" deal. The process can be perfect but starting with bad assumptions, you get bad conclusions.

Link to comment

I'm sorry you don't think truth has any relation with reality.

You don't really know the first thing about epistemology do you?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

I am sorry you believe in a reality which cannot be experienced. That sounds like "magical thinking" to me.

Honestly, we are speaking different languages here. I have been presuming some knowledge of philosophy which you do not have.

Edit: I mean that is ok- it's just not my understanding of where you were coming from. We can start all over again if you like.

Tell me what "reality" is- it is something "out there" or something put together by our human experiences?

Can we experience "reality" in any way other than our 5 senses, and how do we know if our senses are wrong? (mirages, optical illusions, magic tricks etc?)

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...