Comments by Dr Benway

Comment #147971 by Dr Benway on March 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm

I'm of Irish ancestry. Had my first gallstone attack in my mid 20s.

Pathfinder, you're doing really well. But you might want to throttle back on the loony just a tad.

502. Fleabytes

Comment #147958 by Dr Benway on March 21, 2008 at 4:42 pm

All VERY WELL KNOWN BEFORE 1986!

LOL. Just because we hadn't invented a name for a disease until some date doesn't mean the disease didn't exist before that date.

TELL me how my diagnosis of hepatitis is not correct, in spite of all the evidence I have given.

Hepatitis can be caused by: viruses, other critters, obstruction, meds, toxins, etc. Oh, did I say that already?

I don't recall your mentioning the fellow's ethnic background or age. Perhaps you did. These facts can be used to help assign relative probabilities to the items in the list.

You'll have to recap your evidence for me if you want me to say more.

Love the image of all these workers pouring Pepsi into styrofoam cups to - delude me, and themselves.

I could tell you stories... But I thought it was just one chap peeing Pepsi.

503. Fleabytes

Comment #147945 by Dr Benway on March 21, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Scottish... Sufism... One of those Subud folks?

504. Fleabytes

Comment #147934 by Dr Benway on March 21, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Pathfinder: ...science, which has given us so much, isn't the be-all and end-all. How about a little humility, a little scepticism?

Science is a method for stopping yourself from saying you know something when you really don't.

You're managing to convey a lower IQ through your dogged demands for "what caused that guy with hepatitis to get better?" Dumb loony is more plausible than clever loony, although the latter does happen.

But your game has become tiresome and must end.

Partial differential diagnosis list off top of my head (read a book for more):
1. You've made the whole story up.
2. Someone else made it up, and you fell for it.
3. Bits of the story are true and bits are false.

Patients lie. Nurses lie. Staff lie. Doctors lie. Families lie. I encounter fabrications, sloppy memories, exaggerations, guesses presented as facts, second hand reports presented as first hand reports, on a daily basis.

Did you see the urine leave the tip of the penis and go into the cup? Perhaps it actually was Pepsi.

4. Hep A, B, C, D, E, CMV, EBV, HIV, etc., etc.
5. Other critters
6. Drugs
7. Toxins
8. Obstruction - e.g., gallstones, tumor
9. Hemolysis - sickle cell, thalassemia, etc.
10. God

505. Fleabytes

Comment #147816 by Dr Benway on March 21, 2008 at 10:47 am

Dr Shipman... I mean Goebbels...oh, darn it! Mengele...BENWAY. No more trolling, promise!

Pathfinder, you adorable sod, you're too clever by half. To effectively play a fundie loonie you'll have to dumb yourself down several degrees.

You might consider these other personnae:
1. Erudite murky Anglican/Episcopalean
2. Conservative Catholic
3. Mainstream Baptist/Methodist/Lutheran/etc.

Unfortunately, without that loony edge you wear so well, you'll soon bore even yourself to tears in short order.

506. Fleabytes

Comment #147791 by Dr Benway on March 21, 2008 at 8:50 am

Pathfinder must be honing his mad troll skillz. Soon he will pass the Turing test. And then he will be unstoppable!

Hope he/she is on our side.

507. Fleabytes

Comment #147774 by Dr Benway on March 21, 2008 at 8:21 am

mikejswalker: Not kind. Not applause seeking. Just Fair.

Fair play requires that all players understand and apply the same rules. Allow me to review them once again:

1. Claims that can't be corroborated have no persuasive power.
2. Hypotheses should be falsifiable, at least in principle.
3. Arguments shouldn't violate ordinary rules of logic.
4. Simple explanations are preferable to complex explanations.

Robertson says, "show me the evidence," when it's convenient to his case. If you ask for evidence when he hasn't got any, he'll call you a "fundamentalist atheist" or a "logical positivist." This is, of course, cheating.

Get Robertson to play by ordinary rules of evidence, get him to accept the parsimony rule, and then you can referee for fairness. Until then, any conversation with the man will never rise above the level of S&M.

S&M has a lot of entertainment value, and thus the long thread.

508. Fleabytes

Comment #147693 by Dr Benway on March 21, 2008 at 6:12 am

mikejswalker, chat up Robertson all you want. Don't let me stop you.

But don't tell me I must be kind to the cunt.

Concern trolling is teh ghey.

pathfinder: So I really AM ruling out God here, even before you!

Fascinating. How did you rule out God?

509. EXPELLED!

Comment #147576 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Read your link Bigorra.

My name is Stuart Blessman and I'm a student at the University of Minnesota...This movie is not an apology for Creation; pains are taken to distinguish Creation from Intelligent Design. This is also not a movie that bashes Evolutional Theory, although many rational arguments are brought up as to the validity of Evolutionary thought as well as the long-term consequences of an Evolutionary Worldview.

Will someone at U Minn hand Stuart Blessman a clue regarding capitalization rules? And he means "creationism" not "Creation" and "evolutionary" not "Evolutional."

Oy.

510. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #147574 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Happy birthday from the tufted titmouse! You share the same birthday as my husband. So at least one of us will always remember it.

511. EXPELLED!

Comment #147571 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 10:47 pm

These are not the droids you are looking for...

512. EXPELLED!

Comment #147567 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 10:37 pm

More info here: Kristine's blog

A bit that worried me a little:

Oh, and Richard did point out the dishonesty, and Mathis pooh-poohed him, and the fundy home-schooled gaggled (my God, are they inbred? I'm not joking. They have this certain look) just laughed at Dawkins. They have the privilege of being in an audience with Richard Dawkins, and they sneer at him, and cheer these hypocrites who call the cops and send out e-mail that say that purses and cell phones are forbidden (I carried everything in a plastic bag so I made them fucking look at my tampons - that's what they get), and who contribute nothing to human knowledge whatsoever.

513. EXPELLED!

Comment #147524 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Sweet!

But I hope Richard's had his blood pressure meds today.

514. Fleabytes

Comment #147485 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I'm quite prepared, in the interests of inquiry, to cede the fact that there IS a medical explanation for curing hepatitis A by branding. BTW, another Aid worker tried the same local cure, it worked, but then he stupidly went out drinking. So, OK Cure 2 failed, you'd have to say. I don't mean this sarcastically: if you can give me a good medical explanation I'm prepared to admit I'm deluded.

Seriously, the way to approach these things is to first list every explanation for the reported data you can dream up. A list. Make one. Don't do anything else before you make your list.

515. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147464 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I lived in the Sunset. If Tart to Tart is still there, near 6th and Judah, I recommend the Lindsor tort. Fond memories of Gordo's burritos also, on 9th near the park.

516. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147459 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm

The study of what people say about God or spirituality is often called "religious studies."

"Theology" generally is for believers.

The assless chaps seem a bit much though.

If you live in the Bay Area the assless chaps are a risk. On the other hand, if you can max your hetero vibe in some other manner (e.g., dumb down your fashion sense, get a bad haircut, spit), you have the advantage of a large pool of very frustrated single women.

517. Fleabytes

Comment #147457 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 1:28 pm

clearthinker: Dr Benway, all you have to do then is provide the evidence. I'm still waiting.

This is what I meant in my earlier post about the logical positivist position of most of the people on this website. The only evidence you will accept is mathematical or scientific. I don't want to go into all this again (see my earlier post) but the reason logical positivism failed as a philosophy is that it itself cannot be empirically proven. In other words it is self-contradictory.

518. Fleabytes

Comment #147454 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Pathfinder: Later, no jaundice, no piss the color of Pepsi - a complete cure. He could even drink alcohol! Placebo effect? Maybe, but wouldn't it be wiser GENERALLY to suspend judgement before you dismiss anything faintly smacking of the supernatural?

That's not how we roll.

1. List all possible explanations for the reported data.

2. Consider how each explanation might be ruled out.

3. Of those explanations not ruled out, consider their relative probabilities.

You didn't finish your work at step 1 above.

519. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147437 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Henri: Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).

I think Henri is saying, "bad boys get more pussy."

520. Fleabytes

Comment #147354 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 7:54 am

There's merit in what you say, clodhopper. But two things stand in the way of a conscious decision to ignore:

1. new readers often want to find out for themselves if a particular troll is as impossible as the old timers seem to say

2. some accusations are difficult to let stand, as no response might appear to a naive reader as no disagreement.

Oh this is a good one also:

Nipple nipple.

Crap. I'm late for a meeting. This site is like crack.

521. Fleabytes

Comment #147342 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 7:35 am

150,000 textual variations...

Woah!

...of which only 400 alter any meaning in the passage

Seems hard to believe.

...but none of them change a belief.

Ah. That must be why there's only one Christian denomination, and all Christians share the same beliefs.

Here's an illustration of the problems associated with passing information along orally:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZA1NoOOoaNw

You will not be rickrolled. I promise.

522. Fleabytes

Comment #147337 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 7:26 am

Beyond the amusement factor, I don't really give a poo what David or his publisher says to promote his book.

Something that bothers me a bit more: his use of phrases like "atheist myths" or "atheist creed" or "fundamentalist atheists." I assume he's tying to create a Goliath so he can play David.

But in reality, atheists:
1. are people
2. who don't believe in gods

All the shortcomings of people are there amongst the atheists. Some are assholes. Some are stupid. Some are greedy... you get the idea.

Atheists aren't superior to anyone else. They just don't believe in gods. There isn't any other necessary condition for calling one's self an atheist.

We've been over this with Robertson countless times. He's been asked to list the propositions that make up the atheist creed or atheist myths or fundamentalist atheism. He's not done this.

Perhaps the evasion could be forgiven if he stopped using those terms. But they seem to suit his purpose. Crowds of people enjoy his distortions. Applause is apparently more valuable to him than accuracy.

523. Fleabytes

Comment #147321 by Dr Benway on March 20, 2008 at 6:42 am

wee thinker: Of course you don't. But I've just shown to you that what Paula said was false. Now what do your eyes tell you?

Straining gnats but missing the camels. Let's say that old thread in question had 900-ish posts before something happened to the server. Still can't brag it's had the most posts.

Why do you waste our time like this?

Furthermore, what alternate universe do you live in, where quantity of posts on a message board serve as a measure of the quality of the original posting?

524. Fleabytes

Comment #147102 by Dr Benway on March 19, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Pathfinder: FOR MOST PEOPLE GOD is necessary to put the brakes on such behavior. Who else ya gonna call?

We hold each other accountable. Have you never shared a flat with others, hung out with friends, had co-workers, car-pooled, dated, etc?

When the usual methods of resolving conflicts breaks down, we call the police or other social authorities for help.

A percentage of humans are habitual freeloaders, somewhere between 4-10%, depending on the situation. Don't lend 'em money. Don't hang out with them. Find another job if one happens to be your boss. If you can't escape a relationship with one of these unpleasant characters, insist on corroboration for everything they say. Don't leave them to mind the shop.

A tiny percentage of the freeloaders may be indimidated by fantasies of hellfire. But a couple of beers generally overcomes these kinds of worries.

So religion may stop, perhaps, 0.1% of the bad guys from going too far.

Now look at the good people persuaded to do evil, thanks to religion. Most Germans herding people into gas chambers were good Christians. Most parents cutting the genitals off their girls are good Muslims. Most families shunning their gay relatives are kindly people. Were it not for dodgy beliefs about the mind of God, most people would not indulge in such obvious cruelty.

On balance, we stand to gain more from clear thinking than from superstition.

525. Fleabytes

Comment #146596 by Dr Benway on March 19, 2008 at 8:05 am

Did I ever tell you about the time I performed an appendectomy with a rusty sardine can? And once I was caught short without instrument one and removed a uterine tumor with my teeth. That was in the Upper Effendi, and besides...the wench is dead.

526. Fleabytes

Comment #146591 by Dr Benway on March 19, 2008 at 7:59 am

Oh I'm not worried about being compared to a mass murderer. Seriously, I'm not offended.

Gotta go. The baby I'm cooking in the oven is almost done.

527. Fleabytes

Comment #146585 by Dr Benway on March 19, 2008 at 7:55 am

Guess I'll have to google "Harold Shipman" when I have time. Sadly, must go to real work for a time.

Seems Pathfinder's a walking example of Poe's law.

528. Fleabytes

Comment #146571 by Dr Benway on March 19, 2008 at 7:48 am

With Atheism, all and everything is permitted.

Not in my house. Tramp mud around the place and you won't be invited back.

529. Fleabytes

Comment #146565 by Dr Benway on March 19, 2008 at 7:40 am

mlearnedfriend: Sounds like you had fun with David Robertson last night - do a detect a begrudging 'he wasn't actually the monster we make him out to be' in the blog?

I recommend a book for you to read: People of the Lie

Do not for a moment imagine this book is up to any scientific standards. It's more like a blog. Scott Peck is a Christian and a little loony. The chapter on demons is cringe worthy. Nonetheless, he illustrates a character type many people will recognize. He calls this character "evil" for reasons he justifies in the book.

Two reviews from Amazon:

If you have ever experienced or been frustrated by people who seem to have a hidden agenda then you will enjoy and benefit from this book. The author states (some are paraphrased) and explains the following:
1. The evil hide their motives with lies.
2. Evil people want to appear to be good.
3. When confronted by evil, the wisest and most secure adult will usually experience confusion.
4. Evil seeks to discourage others to think for themselves (fosters dependency).
5. To oppose evil we must have an ongoing dedication to reality at all cost.

The term and title "People Of The Lie" refers to the cover-up, pretense and lie of those who refuse to acknowledge their own imperfections, those who flee the light of self-exposure and the voice of their own conscience. Those who instead practice scapegoating, attacking and blaming others, projection, lack of empathy, and judging others, hoping their own flaws will seem less noticeable. In other words, people of the lie deceive and lie to themselves to avoid their true selves, which in turn deceives others. They point their finger at others first so that none can suspect them of a wrong-doing or weakness, believing an offensive attitude, in the guise of respectability, will prevent the need for defense.

530. Fleabytes

Comment #146529 by Dr Benway on March 19, 2008 at 7:05 am

For the Ken Ham meeting:

1. Print up one set of cards saying, "Real Estate Opportunity of a Lifetime! Florida Everglades being drained for new housing development. 1 acre lots currently selling for as little as 2,000£! Further information at www.swamp4sale.com."

2. Print up another set that says, "Investors Wanted! Breakthrough invention, patent pending, using magneto-turbine actually produces more energy than it consumes! Further information at www.perpetmotion.com.

3. At the start and/or end of the meeting, have two people standing outside on the sidewalk (public property, so not get in trouble) handing out the cards to people entering or exiting.

The argument from performance art can be powerful.

531. Fleabytes

Comment #146483 by Dr Benway on March 19, 2008 at 6:07 am

"Wow, this is an intelligent and well-crafted view of RD's book." Response from an atheist on Richard Dawkins Website.
Paula: UPDATE: I have since drawn this issue to the attention of the publisher and they have now amended the wording on their website.

So now the attribution must be: "Response from an anonymous message board poster, who may or may not be an atheist, to a prior article by Robertson." The publisher's web site likely plays the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped.

532. Fleabytes

Comment #145827 by Dr Benway on March 18, 2008 at 7:31 am

If the weethinker were an atheist I'd be just as critical of his posts. It's not his beliefs; it's the way he relates to others that I find distasteful.

533. Fleabytes

Comment #145816 by Dr Benway on March 18, 2008 at 7:09 am

The Joy of Sex (part's One & Two... filth from beginning to end AND my copies fell apart)

LOL.

Paula, just so you know, I've the witness of my own eyes. I need no further justification for the claim that Rupertson plays fast and loose with the truth.

No matter the evidence you present or how many times you and others show up this slippery chap, he'll continue to claim you don't know what you're talking about. Then, while smugly grinning, he'll shit on you s'more. He'll throw in a "fundamentalist atheist," no charge. Then he'll dash off to do Important Things.

534. Fleabytes

Comment #145796 by Dr Benway on March 18, 2008 at 6:40 am

As for Swaggart, Bakker and his ilk, they should be PILLORIED.

Won't help.

What will help: people in general gotta wise up.

Dr Benway; what is it about Free Will and mixed massages you fail to understand?

What's a "mixed massage?"

You wouldn't be an atheist here to take the piss, would you? Or a bipolar patient off meds? You don't exactly add up.

I suppose we might just add you to our growing list of people one brick short of a load.

535. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145794 by Dr Benway on March 18, 2008 at 6:33 am

By getting upset and swearing you are reacting the way they want you to.

Yes, but just because we're potty-mouthed ranting assholes doesn't mean our arguments aren't as water tight as a mermaid's bra.

536. Fleabytes

Comment #145773 by Dr Benway on March 18, 2008 at 6:07 am

Better to have God, isn't it?

We don't actually get God. We get His self-appointed spokespersons. Strangely, they don't agree with each other.

537. Fleabytes

Comment #145765 by Dr Benway on March 18, 2008 at 5:54 am

So many high profile Christians have been caught in scandalous situations - Jim and Tammy Baker, Ted Haggard, Jan and Paul Crouch, Jimmy Swaggart, Richard Roberts. My theory for why the flock are so easily fleeced: the redemption message and the "love your enemies" message screws up the average Christian's ability to make reasonable assessments of character. Writing someone off as a scoundrel makes 'em feel too guilty. The bad guys use this to their advantage. And so they're "forgiven" for bending the rules a little here and there. The followers don't recognize the red flags that ought to alert them to trouble until the trouble is huge.

Gotta keep a tight leash on weasles.

538. Fleabytes

Comment #145757 by Dr Benway on March 18, 2008 at 5:36 am

What a shining beacon of honesty and transparency he is!

His repetitions of "prove that I lied" are dishonest as well. Imagine you caught someone red-handed trying to steal the TV out of your house. Later he says, "prove I was trying to steal your TV."

All cons do this.

Reminds me of a teen who had a habit of stealing cars. I was talking to him about his health and feelings, trying to understand things from his point of view. His mother was there and he'd basically admitted doing something. I said, "So the night you took the car, you..." He interrupted me to say, "they can't prove that."

I laughed, because I wasn't concerned with what could be proven or not in court. It was a non-sequiteur. But so typical.

I hope the Free Church has an independent auditor watching the books.

539. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145753 by Dr Benway on March 18, 2008 at 5:04 am

I note something similar in the creation/morality arguments from Christians:

"Someone powerful had to make the universe."

"Someone powerful had to value love and charity before you could be justified in valuing these things."

But, the universe is its own origin.

And I'm the expert regarding what I feel. To me it's obvious that compassion, cooperation, and honesty are valuable and attractive qualities. Seems most, but not all, humans feel as I do. Lucky thing, otherwise there would be NO HUMANS!

540. Selling science to the masses

Comment #145746 by Dr Benway on March 18, 2008 at 4:43 am

I question whether anyone can even consistently define, let alone defend the notion of "methodological naturalism" (a phrase which was invented by Alvin Plantinga, religious philosopher and a supporter of ID).

Corroboration, falsification, logic, parsimony.

You give Plantinga too much credit I think.

541. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145624 by Dr Benway on March 17, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Next time you're at the market and they ask, "paper or plastic?" you ought to say, "Thanks, Christianity!" Cuz if Christianity hadn't invented free will, you wouldn't have a choice.

"Rigorous atheist." Meh. Just because there's no mob boss in the sky to suck up to doesn't mean a person can't value compassion, truth, and honor. In fact, I think these things are more beautiful than sucking invisible pole.

542. The atheist delusion

Comment #145171 by Dr Benway on March 17, 2008 at 10:35 am

I was talking about the fact that scientific fact is just as useful a propaganda tool as saying God did it, to the general population.

Well alright. But again, that's not fault of science but the human weaknesses we all share. We prefer conspiracy theories to no theory at all. We scapegoat. We've a hard time stepping outside our in-group/out-group feelings.

I really think Gray is wrong to attack Dennett and Dawkins as he does here. Neither has advocated for erradicating everything in the world that falls under the heading of "religion."

Dennett has suggested that we ought to teach children about all the world's religions. He's noted that more toxic religious practice seems to require ignorance and isolation to thrive. I remember hearing him say something like, "Any religion that can survive an education about other religions likely deserves to survive. Any religion that can't survive sucn an education deserves to go."

Dawkins has described himself as "religious in the Einsteinian sense." Early in TGD he distinguishes "Spinoza's God" from "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

What I hear Dennett and Dawkins saying is this: The special social status and authority we've given the religions has to go. People need to question and criticize religious claims about our shared reality in the same way they question every other claim.

This is an important message. I'm annoyed Gray doesn't represent it appropriately.

543. The atheist delusion

Comment #145093 by Dr Benway on March 17, 2008 at 8:37 am

CommonToad, I think we agree. However I would never say, as you said earlier:

Science and reason have exactly the same foibles as religion.

When politicians use bogus science to justify bad social policies, the solution isn't a call to arms against science. A retreat to folk wisdom, religion, or superstition won't help us fight lies and pseudoscience. What's needed is greater fidelity to the ethos, honesty, and methods of sound enquiry.

Humans always want to overstate their data. Science was invented to stop them doing this.

544. The atheist delusion

Comment #145070 by Dr Benway on March 17, 2008 at 8:15 am

So the scientific method can make ethics and morality internally consistent but cannot say whether one is right or wrong.

I agree. Living humans express what they feel is right or best.

Most of the time, in my experience, ethical problems stalemate due to uncertainties or disagreements over the facts. If everyone agreed upon the facts, the dispute would largely vanish. So I think it's misleading to say that science can't help us with ethical questions.

545. The atheist delusion

Comment #144941 by Dr Benway on March 17, 2008 at 4:37 am

Bonzai, I think you and I might be using slightly different definitions of science. I mean methodological naturalism (corroboration, falsification, logic, parsimony). You seem to mean professional science.

The broad definition encompasses ordinary problem solving humans do daily - e.g. why the car won't start.

The broad definition is an answer to the challenge, "science doesn't know everything" or "there are other ways of knowing" or "there are other kinds of truth."

In my experience, this challenge is a prelude to some dodgy assertion, which the speaker would prefer not to support with evidence. "Evidence" is only for science.

We have the authority of corroborative evidence or the authority of special social privilege. That's about it, I think.

546. The atheist delusion

Comment #144859 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 9:35 pm

First of all, we can never examine all evidence that is theoretically possible because it is infeasible to collect all the data.

Of course.

Secondly, in most real world problems it is impossible to run controlled experiments.

There's still careful observation and description, and corroboration. That's what Darwin did. That's science.

547. The atheist delusion

Comment #144841 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 8:48 pm

With limitations to our abilities we can have no reason to believe that we have the capacities to gain the truth about the world.

We test claims like this:

1. corroboration
2. falsification
3. logic
4. parsimony

Claims that pass these tests are contingently accepted as true.

What's your definition of truth?

548. The atheist delusion

Comment #144835 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 8:35 pm

We are organic creatures who have our limitations and particular capacities, and we've got no reason to believe that these capacities are such that we can gain the truth about the world.

Can this claim be falsified? I don't think so. Can it be corroborated? No. It can thus be ignored.

No correct, sorry. The number of questions that arise from this 'one question' are essentially every question dealing with human affairs. How to organise societies etc. Not a small thing. Big deal, only because of its implications.

You're going to "organize societies", and for that you don't need science. Well, good luck to you.

549. The atheist delusion

Comment #144805 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 7:06 pm

The people in power. Power serves power interests which are corporations

Would you like me to have a talk with them, try to get them to see your side of things? If so, best you outline your wishes for me, as I'd hate to guess and be wrong.

550. The atheist delusion

Comment #144803 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 6:59 pm

OK commonToad, back to 100:

The scientific method is the only known way so that we can approach an understanding of reality.

In other words, the scientific method is our only means of mapping reality. Yes?

We have no way to know whether this is happening, whether we have the capacity to understand reality etc, that is as a consequence of applying the scientific method, that we are biological organisms with limitations.

I don't know what this means.

Ask the question. What's the best way to organise society? You cannot apply the scientific method to this question because the desired result is a value judgement.

We've discussed this. There's one question science can't answer: "What do you want, Dr. Benway?" But luckily there's an expert here who can answer that question.

No point making a big deal over that, is there?

The scientific method has limits to its application, so would always be part of society but cannot be applied to every question that is raised in that society.

I smell bullshit.