Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 3:15 pm 

Paralith wrote:As others have already mentioned, the existence, nature, and importance of emotions to human behavior and experience is an objectively known fact


You coldheartedly, emotionlessly, talk about people's emotions in terms of fact. That is exactly where the coldhearted and calculating stereotype of the scientist comes from. Who will you say is loving and who is hateful, as a matter of "scientific" fact?

Aren't we agreed that what is beautiful, good and evil, is not a matter of (scientific) fact? Science cannot say what is beautiful, yet to say what is beautiful is valid.

Which means somewhere there must be a border between fact and opinion. And very clearly logic dictates that this border is at decisions. That a decision is made is still a fact, but the agency of it is a matter of opinion.

I utterly condemn your point of view, the accusation against the scientific community in general, and especially evolution scientists, that they leave no room for subjectivity, is justified.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Paralith on June 29th, 2016, 3:43 pm 

Syamsu » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:15 pm wrote:I utterly condemn your point of view, the accusation against the scientific community in general, and especially evolution scientists, that they leave no room for subjectivity, is justified.


...this sentence doesn't even make sense.

I'm also unclear how my discussion of emotion is itself emotionless, while I presume you believe that yours is not? Shall I say, I have great confidence in the reality and importance of emotion? Shall I describe the swelling of joy and camaraderie with my fellow humans that I feel, understanding the richness of the emotions in each of their minds? Shall I describe how simultaneously beautiful and terrible I find the vast tapestry of humanity that arises from the incredible and awe-inspiring complexity that is our physical bodies and minds?

I could, I suppose, if you somehow need proof that I feel and appreciate emotion. But I don't see you describing them that way either. A topic can be discussed with precision and clarity, with the aim of improved communication, without requiring that the speakers be devoid of emotion. It's a false dichotomy. And part of the stereotype you want to perpetuate.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Serpent on June 29th, 2016, 3:55 pm 

Which means somewhere there must be a border between fact and opinion.

There is no such border. The functions of the animal brain encompass sensation, emotion, social conditioning, instinct, memory, curiosity, invention, the collation and processing of information, learned motor skills, risk assessment, pattern-recognition, imagination, decision-making and maybe a few I've left out. The overlap and constant interaction between any two processes is to varied and complex to measure (at least, so far). The intelligent animal uses as many relevant facts as it can collect in the formation of its opinions.
And very clearly logic dictates that this border is at decisions.

Logic doesn't dictate anything; logic deduces conclusions from premises. You appeal to subjective emotion and logic in the same sentence. On what - I should rather ask, on which - platform?

That a decision is made is still a fact, but the agency of it is a matter of opinion.

You can opine away all you want, but you can't convince other people of the information-content of your opinion without presenting identifiable facts.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby dandelion on June 29th, 2016, 4:36 pm 

IMO, a lot about evolution is beautiful.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Serpent on June 29th, 2016, 5:14 pm 

E.g. dandelions.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
dandelionTheVatLomax liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 6:00 pm 

Paralith » June 29th, 2016, 2:43 pm wrote:
Syamsu » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:15 pm wrote:I utterly condemn your point of view, the accusation against the scientific community in general, and especially evolution scientists, that they leave no room for subjectivity, is justified.


...this sentence doesn't even make sense.

I'm also unclear how my discussion of emotion is itself emotionless, while I presume you believe that yours is not? Shall I say, I have great confidence in the reality and importance of emotion? Shall I describe the swelling of joy and camaraderie with my fellow humans that I feel, understanding the richness of the emotions in each of their minds? Shall I describe how simultaneously beautiful and terrible I find the vast tapestry of humanity that arises from the incredible and awe-inspiring complexity that is our physical bodies and minds?

I could, I suppose, if you somehow need proof that I feel and appreciate emotion. But I don't see you describing them that way either. A topic can be discussed with precision and clarity, with the aim of improved communication, without requiring that the speakers be devoid of emotion. It's a false dichotomy. And part of the stereotype you want to perpetuate.


The obvious point is that once you make emotions into an objective, factual issue, then there is basically no subjective issue left.

You are maybe confused that we can see as fact the word beautiful, but the word beautiful does not consist of love. And all the relevant chemistry in the brain is like the word beautiful. You can see it, it has to do with expression of emotion, but it is not the emotion itself. The chemistry in the brain can turn out several different ways, and only the agency which makes the chemistry turn out the way it does can be said to be love, as a matter of opinion only.

And I don't feel you are sincere, responsible, taking care, to determine if or not you are encroaching on the rightful domain of subjectivity. What I see is that typical sort of extreme borderlining, fighting tooth and nail approach, and actually you are far over the border.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Paralith on June 29th, 2016, 8:02 pm 

I don't see how admitting to the objective facts of emotion necessarily excludes subjectivity. Subjectivity as a human experience happens because my experiences during development are unique to me, and were and continue to be incorporated into the physical structure of my mind and body. There are also known physical mechanisms that allow for the generation of new and unique physical structures, of new information, and that also contributes to the experience of subjectivity.

We can objectively observe that humans have subjective experiences.

I have to say, it's kind of amusing that first you accuse me of being too emotionless, and now apparently I am being too emotional, too "far over the border" aggressive. In any case, I can understand how you might feel that I am being aggressive. Many of us have had the subjective experience of feeling persecuted when concepts and ideas we hold dear to our hearts are being critically assessed and questioned. Intellectual growth can be a very emotionally taxing process. But if you put your ideas out into the world, and especially if you put them on a philosophy discussion forum, these are the kinds of experiences you are going to have.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)
BadgerJellyTheVat liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on June 29th, 2016, 9:42 pm 

Hurrah! The "opinion" that creationism is nonsense, none of us have any control over the age of the planet Earth, and that evolution happened (and continues to happen), seems here to be a matter of near-consensus. Syamsu tells us that its status as a held opinion makes it into an objective fact, and we really can't ask for a better QED against Syamsu's own theory than that.

He (please correct me if you are "she") also opines that natural selection happens in an anticipatory way, which somewhat begs the question of why so much stuff has to die young. We are also told that

Syamsu wrote:The organisms look designed, so that is good evidence that they are designed. If we admit the fact that freedom is real, then that is a sensible explanation.

Also this idea of junk-DNA, that just doesn't feel right.


Perhaps the misguiding way things look is only a consequence of the fact that Syamsu's optic lenses are built inside-out and back-to-front, leaving the brain with a phenomenal amount of work to do to correct and make sense of the data it receives. Perhaps the way a statement that explains nothing seems like "a sensible explanation" is due to the fact that, like all of us here, he is a primate with an undersized frontal lobe; perhaps the fact that something doesn't feel right is because of our oversized adrenal glands. Perhaps the fact that we are debating this topic on the humanly habitable 12% of a dying planet, most of which is far too hot, cold, dry or wet, after billions of years of lifelessness and hundreds of thousands of years of humans dying in their 20s and 30s of starvation and tooth disease, in a corner of a relatively small galaxy in a universe expanding so fast that soon (on the grand scale) we won't be able to tell that most of it was ever there at all, is reason alone to understand that we shouldn't be having to debate about the benefactor of this obviously flawless design in the first place.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on June 29th, 2016, 9:54 pm 

ronjanec » June 29th, 2016, 7:51 pm wrote:"Creationists" like yours truly here, again (primarily) believe in the existence of God because of what is called by others "Intelligent Design"(with a good amount of what is called "faith" in God covering the rest)

That's a relief, mine truly. It always puts me on edge when we agree about something ;)
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK
ronjanec liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 29th, 2016, 10:08 pm 

Paralith wrote:We can objectively observe that humans have subjective experiences.


You are just waving the accusation away with some platitudes. You can see that maybe making the existence of emotions into a matter of fact could leave no room for subjectivity. You can see you would be close to the line where you would be making pronouncements about what is good or loving as if it was a scientific fact. It doesn't sound right for science to make pronouncements about who is in fact loving and who is hateful, or does it?

Can you tell me then for example if Donald Trump is in scientific fact a loving guy or a hateful guy? Whether or not he has love in his heart or brain?
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby BadgerJelly on June 29th, 2016, 10:33 pm 

Guys and gals ... I have come across Syamsu before. His main point is not about refuting evolutionary theory it is actually some bizarre take on causation in "opinion", "fact" and "choosing".
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on June 29th, 2016, 10:48 pm 

BadgerJelly » June 30th, 2016, 3:33 am wrote:Guys and gals ... I have come across Syamsu before. His main point is not about refuting evolutionary theory it is actually some bizarre take on causation in "opinion", "fact" and "choosing".

It's clear enough from the OP that Syamsu uses this unusual brand of relativism in support of Creationism, so each can be used as an additional platform to discredit the other.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Eclogite on June 30th, 2016, 3:42 am 

Syamsu » Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:27 pm wrote:
Eclogite » June 29th, 2016, 8:26 am wrote:
Syamsu » Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:28 am wrote:2: The opinion must about something that chooses.

Perhaps I am being very stupid, but this makes no sense to me. In your example an opinion is formed about a painting. In what way is the painting choosing?


...if you read carefully it is the love for the way the painting looks which chooses the word beautiful.
Exactly so. I did read very carefully and you said exactly that. Here it is:
This love is what chose between the words beautiful and ugly


But your point No. 2 states very clearly "the opinion must [be] about something that chooses." In your example the opinion is about the painting. Therefore, in your own words it must be the painting that chooses. Also in your own words it must be love that chooses. There is complete contradiction between your two statements.

Perhaps rather than urging your readers to read carefully you should learn to write carefully.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about
Lomax liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 30th, 2016, 9:04 am 

Eclogite wrote:Perhaps I am being very stupid,


You are just extremely bad at reading comprehension.

Nowhere does it say that this person is choosing between different paintings. The person is choosing between the words ugly and beautiful. As is made quite plain in a picture. And these words refer to hate and love as agency of a decision.

As to illustrate the 2 requirements, that an opinion must be chosen, and that the opinion must be about something that chooses, in this case hate and love are referred to as agency with the words ugly and beautiful.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby TheVat on June 30th, 2016, 9:29 am 

This guy is going to just keep winding you all up. Pure trollery.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7325
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby BadgerJelly on June 30th, 2016, 10:20 am 

Syamsu -

People here could help you clarify. It should be fairly clear that all your efforts to communicate your idea have failed. What may be obvious to you is not obvious to anyone else. This means you are either at fault or you are not expressing yourself well enough.

You can abandon the idea, abandon the people here reading what you write or try to elaborate and explain what you mean little bit by little bit.

Good luck
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
SciameriKen liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 30th, 2016, 7:17 pm 

The contrasting points of view have become clear in the topic, one side saying they can measure love as fact, the other side saying this is a logical impossiblity, that the existence of love is a matter of opinion.

There is no need to clarify, there is a need for a psychologist, or actually a preacher, to help evolutionists overcome the head vs heart struggle.

Honesty, sincerity, fairness, truthfulness, all these subjective things are actually very relevant in finding out the facts of the matter, besides objective things like accuracy, precision, evidence. So there is this catch 22 situation where evolutionists can never discover the validity of subjectivity, because of lack of paying attention to their emotional disposition in investigating.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on June 30th, 2016, 7:30 pm 

Syamsu,

Even if we put aside the matter of whether love is subjective: it by no means follows that the age of the planet is subjective, does it?

These are the things I will concede to you. The Duhem-Quine thesis seems to me quite obviously true, and a statement can't be tested in isolation, but depends contextually on everything we already believe. Given the choice between multiple working theories, we go for what's simpler, more elegant, more intuitive.

This does not permit us to say "the earth is twenty years old" without revising pretty much everything else we know or claim to know, and ending up at a probably uglier, clunkier, harder to grasp and harder to apply set of beliefs. It doesn't imply just choosing what you feel in your heart to be true. The impeccable Alan Sokal puts it concisely:

Alan Sokal wrote:Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on June 30th, 2016, 8:38 pm 

Lomax » June 30th, 2016, 6:30 pm wrote:Syamsu,

Even if we put aside the matter of whether love is subjective: it by no means follows that the age of the planet is subjective, does it?

These are the things I will concede to you. The Duhem-Quine thesis seems to me quite obviously true, and a statement can't be tested in isolation, but depends contextually on everything we already believe. Given the choice between multiple working theories, we go for what's simpler, more elegant, more intuitive.

This does not permit us to say "the earth is twenty years old" without revising pretty much everything else we know or claim to know, and ending up at a probably uglier, clunkier, harder to grasp and harder to apply set of beliefs. It doesn't imply just choosing what you feel in your heart to be true. The impeccable Alan Sokal puts it concisely:

Alan Sokal wrote:Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)


In creationism objectivity and subjectivity are each validated in their own right, as is explained on the website I made.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Serpent on June 30th, 2016, 11:16 pm 

As long as creationism stays in its own right and out of the public schools, I don't care.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3865
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Watson liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Watson on July 1st, 2016, 12:13 am 

In creationism objectivity and subjectivity are each validated in their own right

This is the first I've heard that creationism had anything to do with language or the meaning or intent of the words. I suppose I should read what you have written as suggested, but I must admit I have lost some interest in this subject.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Eclogite on July 1st, 2016, 4:57 am 

Syamsu » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:04 pm wrote:
Eclogite wrote:Perhaps I am being very stupid,
You are just extremely bad at reading comprehension.
It turns out that there is significant evidence that I am very good at reading comprehension. I have noted before that poor writers often think the primary responsibility for comprehension lies with the reader. You would benefit, in future, from recognising that the reverse is true.

Syamsu » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:04 pm wrote:
Eclogite wrote:Nowhere does it say that this person is choosing between different paintings.
That's fine. I never suggested that was not the case.


Syamsu » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:04 pm wrote:
Eclogite wrote: The person is choosing between the words ugly and beautiful.
Hold on! How can the person be choosing. You stated very clearly that "the opinion must [be] about something that chooses". If the person is doing the choosing, then the opinion must be about them, but you said the opinion was about the painting.

I regret to say Syamsu that whatever you wanted to say, whatever you think you said, that is not what you have actually said. Why not accept this, admit it and have another try at stating your thoughts correctly. That way we can progress with a discussion of your actual thesis, rather than a discussion of your compromised syntax.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 1st, 2016, 6:52 am 

Eclogite wrote:Perhaps I am being very stupid,


Parodixically your intelligence seems devoted to being stupid.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 1st, 2016, 7:14 am 

Serpent » June 30th, 2016, 10:16 pm wrote:As long as creationism stays in its own right and out of the public schools, I don't care.


If a school doesn't teach creationism, then it means there is no esteem for people's emotions in the school, because subjectivity is a creationist concept. Of course there will still be some support for subjectivity from common discourse, but basically what they would be teaching in class is that all that subjectivity is just a bunch of malarkey, and that only facts is where it's at.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby BadgerJelly on July 1st, 2016, 7:27 am 

Syamsu -

Opinion is opinion. I do not teach people they should think like me.

Calling people names won't help your case
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Lomaxronjanec liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Eclogite on July 1st, 2016, 7:58 am 

Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:52 am wrote:
Eclogite wrote:Perhaps I am being very stupid,
Parodixically your intelligence seems devoted to being stupid.
Do you intend to address the unresolvable paradox I have described in my previous post? Or may I take this response as tacit acknowledgement that your thesis has been poorly constructed. Please respond appropriately this time.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Eclogite on July 1st, 2016, 8:05 am 

Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:14 am wrote:If a school doesn't teach creationism, then it means there is no esteem for people's emotions in the school, because subjectivity is a creationist concept.
Creationism was not taught at my school, however emotions were considered positively in several ways:

1. The enthusiasm generated by inter-house rivalry.
2. The whole range of emotions generated in a study of Shakespeare
3. The use of language to convey and evoke emotion.
4. The sense of wonder inspired by the revelations of science.
5. The satisfaction/joy occasioned by academic success.

There are others, but that small selection demonstrates that your assertion is demonstrably incorrect.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby ronjanec on July 1st, 2016, 9:10 am 

Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:52 am wrote:
Eclogite wrote:Perhaps I am being very stupid,


Parodixically your intelligence seems devoted to being stupid.


Syamsu,

What are you actually trying to accomplish here? I am also curious in regards to what particular Christian religion you follow and practice? I am also a believer, and your calling someone else here "stupid", and also insulting a number of others in your previous responses to their posts makes the rest of us look really bad, and certainly does not help our cause.

I really hate to come across as so harsh Syamsu, but if you are trying to be some kind of an "evangelist" here, your comments in this thread are probably having the exact opposite effect.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs
Lomax liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 1st, 2016, 10:00 am 

Eclogite » July 1st, 2016, 7:05 am wrote:
Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:14 am wrote:If a school doesn't teach creationism, then it means there is no esteem for people's emotions in the school, because subjectivity is a creationist concept.
Creationism was not taught at my school, however emotions were considered positively in several ways:

1. The enthusiasm generated by inter-house rivalry.
2. The whole range of emotions generated in a study of Shakespeare
3. The use of language to convey and evoke emotion.
4. The sense of wonder inspired by the revelations of science.
5. The satisfaction/joy occasioned by academic success.

There are others, but that small selection demonstrates that your assertion is demonstrably incorrect.


Did you not sense an intellectual rejection of the validity of subjectivity there? That emotions of people were systematically ignored because of the fact that emotions cannot be measured? That people there were generally coldhearted and calculating?
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 1st, 2016, 10:04 am 

Eclogite » July 1st, 2016, 6:58 am wrote:
Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:52 am wrote:
Eclogite wrote:Perhaps I am being very stupid,
Parodixically your intelligence seems devoted to being stupid.
Do you intend to address the unresolvable paradox I have described in my previous post? Or may I take this response as tacit acknowledgement that your thesis has been poorly constructed. Please respond appropriately this time.


By all means suggest some wording which you think is better.
Syamsu
 


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests