SusanDoris the millstone

1192022242534

Comments

  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Excellent!! :) Harmony rather than discord every time - always, always preferable.

    Nope, don't agree. Discord / debate / thrashing out differences of opinion, in itself, can be an empowering process. And may not lead to harmony.
    I know! I wrote and posted, and wondered whether to go back and edit straight away, but decided to think a bit first.
    And some people hold beliefs in harmony with the rest of their community but those beliefs can bring terrible oppression to others who hold different beliefs in different communities. I recall time spent with fundamentalist Christians who held beliefs in harmony but woe betide anyone who chose to think for themselves.
    I also mention a story I heard this morning of a member of our government who believes that food banks are a propaganda invention of 'the left' and there is no need for them. (Well, OK, who ever said that either of our main political parties were in harmony?!)
    Yes, and of course it is only because of challenges to old understandings - one has only to think of Galileo - that new and better information becomes available.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    ; but . It's not distinguishing between emotion and the biochemistry thereof; it's distinguishing the fact of one particular emotion held by one person, and the biochemistry thereof.
    Do you think this is entirely random then, or determined, or without reason or cause? If so, I think that would mean you do not think science, or scientific knowledge, has anything to do with it. Whether it does or not, the feelings themselves remain and there would be no point in anyone refuting them. I certainly do not.
    ...or it's an intentional non sequitur, which says something more sinister.
    Is there a rolls eyes up emoticon anywhere?


  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Excellent!! :) Harmony rather than discord every time - always, always preferable.

    Nope, don't agree. Discord / debate / thrashing out differences of opinion, in itself, can be an empowering process. And may not lead to harmony.
    I know! I wrote and posted, and wondered whether to go back and edit straight away, but decided to think a bit first.
    And some people hold beliefs in harmony with the rest of their community but those beliefs can bring terrible oppression to others who hold different beliefs in different communities. I recall time spent with fundamentalist Christians who held beliefs in harmony but woe betide anyone who chose to think for themselves.
    I also mention a story I heard this morning of a member of our government who believes that food banks are a propaganda invention of 'the left' and there is no need for them. (Well, OK, who ever said that either of our main political parties were in harmony?!)
    Yes, and of course it is only because of challenges to old understandings - one has only to think of Galileo - that new and better information becomes available.

    In view of everything that has been said, perhaps it would have been wise to delete the post before thinking!
    And I wasn't referring to 'old understandings'. You are treading on thin ice, methinks, especially when you say 'better'. My remarks apply equally to new-fangled ideas - or even new and profound insights (and don't quote Ecclesiastes 1v9!)
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Excellent!! :) Harmony rather than discord every time - always, always preferable.

    Nope, don't agree. Discord / debate / thrashing out differences of opinion, in itself, can be an empowering process. And may not lead to harmony.
    I know! I wrote and posted, and wondered whether to go back and edit straight away, but decided to think a bit first.
    And some people hold beliefs in harmony with the rest of their community but those beliefs can bring terrible oppression to others who hold different beliefs in different communities. I recall time spent with fundamentalist Christians who held beliefs in harmony but woe betide anyone who chose to think for themselves.
    I also mention a story I heard this morning of a member of our government who believes that food banks are a propaganda invention of 'the left' and there is no need for them. (Well, OK, who ever said that either of our main political parties were in harmony?!)
    Yes, and of course it is only because of challenges to old understandings - one has only to think of Galileo - that new and better information becomes available.

    In view of everything that has been said, perhaps it would have been wise to delete the post before thinking!
    And I wasn't referring to 'old understandings'. You are treading on thin ice, methinks, especially when you say 'better'. My remarks apply equally to new-fangled ideas - or even new and profound insights (and don't quote Ecclesiastes 1v9!)
    Well, of course, I can think of quite a few scientific inventions which would be difficult to class as *better* than their predecessors, but the world has to deal with everything that has been invented, whether beneficial or not.

    I'm reading about Beaufort, Constable, Fitz-Roy and others who really set the course of, and advanced, the understanding of, meteorology. Yes, we'd have come to the same answers one way or another, but there is no doubt that the information they gathered was decidedly better than the very hazy ideas previously available.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    ; but . It's not distinguishing between emotion and the biochemistry thereof; it's distinguishing the fact of one particular emotion held by one person, and the biochemistry thereof.
    Do you think this is entirely random then, or determined, or without reason or cause? If so, I think that would mean you do not think science, or scientific knowledge, has anything to do with it. Whether it does or not, the feelings themselves remain and there would be no point in anyone refuting them. I certainly do not.
    Still misses the point. Just incapable, methinks.
  • I was responding to your thoughts about belief which was the context, I think, of your remarks about harmony. You have chosen to switch your argument to scientific inventions.
    You will not be surprised to learn that I imagined that your 'old understandings' might be referring to Christianity.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    there is no doubt that the information they gathered was decidedly better than the very hazy ideas previously available.

    As I have to explain to my students every semester, "better" is itself a very hazy idea until you define and create standards for this term with relation to the particular comparison you're making.

    Is Team A "better" than Team B? Dunno; depends on whether you're comparing win-loss records, offense/defense strategies, individual player skills, etc.

    Is wind power "better" than solar power? Dunno. Are we comparing production costs, accessibility, environmental effects, ????

    Is Novel A "better" than Novel B? Dunno; what exactly are your tastes in and standards for novels, and how did each of these two examples conform to those tastes and standards ?

  • SusanDoris, the message comes through time and again to me that you believe that those who have any kind of faith are not up to date with the discoveries of the last couple of hundred years. You seem to think that this 'new knowledge' has superseded any idea of the existence of God, and so if believers would only learn, we would throw out our faith.

    Please let me know whether this is what you believe.
  • Susan you appear to understand *that* other people value other kinds of truth claims, you do not appear to understand *why* they do. And this goes way beyond religion.

    You commented several times in your responses, I hope you don’t think I didn’t know that. The way you have been debating on here suggested you didn’t.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris, the message comes through time and again to me that you believe that those who have any kind of faith are not up to date with the discoveries of the last couple of hundred years.

    I'd like to know the answer to that too. I mean, I've two science degrees (one of them a doctorate in geophysics) and write SF, so I kind of hope I'm not just up to date, but ahead of the curve, and yet I still believe.
  • SD has also said that as scientific knowledge progresses, there will be less and less reason to believe in God.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    SD has also said that as scientific knowledge progresses, there will be less and less reason to believe in God.

    If she believes that, she's got little understanding of into human behaviour.
    I think we all would be able to get along better (!) if she just accepted that there are gods - it's a simple thing. But then I suppose she would change her tune to 'it's all in the mind'.
  • I was responding to your thoughts about belief which was the context, I think, of your remarks about harmony. You have chosen to switch your argument to scientific inventions.
    You will not be surprised to learn that I imagined that your 'old understandings' might be referring to Christianity.
    My references to 'old' understandings, whether of religious and Christian beliefs or scientific ones, were to indicate that the world has to deal with what is known, believed and understood today - and that is of course obvious. It is easier to talk of material things than ideas I think, and it is no good wishing any of them had not been thought of in the first place!
  • Ohher wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    there is no doubt that the information they gathered was decidedly better than the very hazy ideas previously available.

    As I have to explain to my students every semester, "better" is itself a very hazy idea until you define and create standards for this term with relation to the particular comparison you're making.

    Is Team A "better" than Team B? Dunno; depends on whether you're comparing win-loss records, offense/defense strategies, individual player skills, etc.

    Is wind power "better" than solar power? Dunno. Are we comparing production costs, accessibility, environmental effects, ????

    Is Novel A "better" than Novel B? Dunno; what exactly are your tastes in and standards for novels, and how did each of these two examples conform to those tastes and standards ?
    Yes of course I see what you mean, but the general meaning must have been clear enough! I will refer to a synonyms page when posting on SofF!

  • mousethief wrote: »
    SD has also said that as scientific knowledge progresses, there will be less and less reason to believe in God.
    If she believes that, she's got little understanding of into human behaviour.
    Bingo.
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    It is easier to talk of material things than ideas I think....
    What does ease matter? We live non-material things. Democracy. Love. Justice. Kindness. Truth. These are all non-material. But we must talk about them. Just talking about material things is a cop-out from life.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris, the message comes through time and again to me that you believe that those who have any kind of faith are not up to date with the discoveries of the last couple of hundred years. You seem to think that this 'new knowledge' has superseded any idea of the existence of God, and so if believers would only learn, we would throw out our faith.

    Please let me know whether this is what you believe.
    Of course not!!! I do not live in a cloud cuckoo land of make-believe, I listen to the news, I do not live in a fantasy past or present. I don't try and pretend that things are other than what they are , whether in the case of religious beliefs or the material side. I subscribe to charities that I feel can do some good for children. I keep my feet firmly on the ground, and I do not wear any metaphorical blinkers.

    since this is Hell, I will mention that I do not think there is any god to do anything, but you know that I think. I also could not fail to be aware that there are multi millions who do.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    I can't help but stare in horror at the totally-missing-the-point answer to the fantastically inane question. You both suck so much, it's like watching a neutron star collide with a tiny black hole.
  • Susan you appear to understand *that* other people value other kinds of truth claims, you do not appear to understand *why* they do. And this goes way beyond religion.

    You commented several times in your responses, I hope you don’t think I didn’t know that. The way you have been debating on here suggested you didn’t.
    I refuse to use sarcasm, so I will ljust sigh deeply, shake my head in disbelief and remind myself that I am reasonably intelligent, even though I'm 82!!

    Of course I understand why people believe. It has been a constant throughout history and is not going to become simply and only apart of history for as long as humans are around. I think there will be a gradual lessening of religious beliefs but my thoughts on that really don't matter since I'll be dead and gone.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    SD has also said that as scientific knowledge progresses, there will be less and less reason to believe in God.

    If she believes that, she's got little understanding of into human behaviour.
    I think we all would be able to get along better (!) if she just accepted that there are gods - it's a simple thing. But then I suppose she would change her tune to 'it's all in the mind'.
    Now that's an interesting way to phrase it: 'acceptded that there are gods'.
    On what basis should I 'accept' this? And why?
    It is patently obvious that people believe there is/are God/god/s but I cannot think of a reason why I should too!

  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    RooK wrote: »
    I can't help but stare in horror at the totally-missing-the-point answer to the fantastically inane question. You both suck so much, it's like watching a neutron star collide with a tiny black hole.
    Is it giving you indigestion? Mr Polly suffered from that!What a contrast - reading The History of Mr Polly' and here!

    I wonder if anyone will ever say or admit that I have got a point?
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    I refuse to use sarcasm,

    Twelve minutes later....
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    I can't help but stare in horror at the totally-missing-the-point answer to the fantastically inane question. You both suck so much, it's like watching a neutron star collide with a tiny black hole.
    Is it giving you indigestion? Mr Polly suffered from that!What a contrast - reading The History of Mr Polly' and here!

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Susan you appear to understand *that* other people value other kinds of truth claims, you do not appear to understand *why* they do. And this goes way beyond religion.

    You commented several times in your responses, I hope you don’t think I didn’t know that. The way you have been debating on here suggested you didn’t.
    I refuse to use sarcasm, so I will ljust sigh deeply, shake my head in disbelief and remind myself that I am reasonably intelligent, even though I'm 82!!

    Of course I understand why people believe. It has been a constant throughout history and is not going to become simply and only apart of history for as long as humans are around. I think there will be a gradual lessening of religious beliefs but my thoughts on that really don't matter since I'll be dead and gone.

    SusanDoris, I would suggest that while you understand why you personally believed, and maybe why people in your family believed, you don't actually know why people in general believe, because different people can have very different reasons. That doesn't make you unintelligent - intelligence is recognising the limitations of your own viewpoint. I doubt anyone here, no matter how intelligent, would claim to understand, in general, why people believe. Generally, the more intelligent and insightful someone is, the more they realise how much they don't know, and they are more hesitant to make assumptions.

    Similarly, when you said you thought it was easier to talk about material things than ideas, you were talking about your own ease. Not everyone is such a concrete thinker as you are. Plenty of people enjoy talking about ideas and don't necessarily find it more difficult than talking about concrete things.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I refuse to use sarcasm,

    Twelve minutes later....
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    I can't help but stare in horror at the totally-missing-the-point answer to the fantastically inane question. You both suck so much, it's like watching a neutron star collide with a tiny black hole.
    Is it giving you indigestion? Mr Polly suffered from that!What a contrast - reading The History of Mr Polly' and here!
    I told you - I do not use sarcasm. that was not sarcasm. If you read it as such, I am sorry to hear that, but it was meant in fun, which is why I added an !

  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    SD has also said that as scientific knowledge progresses, there will be less and less reason to believe in God.

    If she believes that, she's got little understanding of into human behaviour.
    I think we all would be able to get along better (!) if she just accepted that there are gods - it's a simple thing. But then I suppose she would change her tune to 'it's all in the mind'.
    Now that's an interesting way to phrase it: 'acceptded that there are gods'.
    On what basis should I 'accept' this? And why?
    It is patently obvious that people believe there is/are God/god/s but I cannot think of a reason why I should too!

    I was being careful! I did not say that you need to accept a god for yourself, only that you need to accept that there are gods. If you remember, I explained my own belief some several hundred posts ago and you commented that you would need to read David Boulton's book IIRC. There are many gods worshipped, followed, adored and so on. Always will be. For those who follow these gods, they are real gods, of course. The least you and I can do is to acknowledge this and respect the god-followers. We don't have to accept the gods for ourselves. If you could accept this philosophy, things might go more smoothly for you and others on the Ship?
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    there is no doubt that the information they gathered was decidedly better than the very hazy ideas previously available.

    As I have to explain to my students every semester, "better" is itself a very hazy idea until you define and create standards for this term with relation to the particular comparison you're making.

    Is Team A "better" than Team B? Dunno; depends on whether you're comparing win-loss records, offense/defense strategies, individual player skills, etc.

    Is wind power "better" than solar power? Dunno. Are we comparing production costs, accessibility, environmental effects, ????

    Is Novel A "better" than Novel B? Dunno; what exactly are your tastes in and standards for novels, and how did each of these two examples conform to those tastes and standards ?
    Yes of course I see what you mean, but the general meaning must have been clear enough! I will refer to a synonyms page when posting on SofF!

    Again, you miss the point. How can the "general meaning" of a comparative term be useful in comparing specific phenomena? Please don't go hunting for synonyms; they won't help.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Susan you appear to understand *that* other people value other kinds of truth claims, you do not appear to understand *why* they do. And this goes way beyond religion.

    You commented several times in your responses, I hope you don’t think I didn’t know that. The way you have been debating on here suggested you didn’t.
    I refuse to use sarcasm, so I will ljust sigh deeply, shake my head in disbelief and remind myself that I am reasonably intelligent, even though I'm 82!!

    Of course I understand why people believe. It has been a constant throughout history and is not going to become simply and only apart of history for as long as humans are around. I think there will be a gradual lessening of religious beliefs but my thoughts on that really don't matter since I'll be dead and gone.

    You are talking about belief, as if you are thinking only about faith.

    Justice, honour, equality, are not scientific concepts. Guilt is not a scientific concept. Murder is not a scientific concept.

    Why do you believe scientific hypotheses are a higher form of knowledge ?
  • End Irony-O-Meter failure misery!

    Come to Me - I will recalibrate your Irony-O-Meter to cope with all known kinds of sarcasm, satire, and irony, at rates of £100 per hour for the first hour, and just £75 per hour thereafter!

    Complete success guaranteed!

    Special offer for a limited time only!


    (with due acknowledgements to 'Private Eye')

    IJ
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    It occurs to me that much of the 22 pages of this thread have been exclamations of frustration/derision/amazement that SD continues to miss the point.

    Earlier in the thread SD was exclaiming over the fact that there are certain Christians in the world who use their beliefs to dictate what others should do. Gamma replied, 'Sure, of course there are. There are people out there who believe differently to you. Get over it already.'

    I would gently suggest the same applies to people whose communication differs from yours. There are plenty of people in the world who continually miss the point of conversations and discussions. It may be annoying, but surely, after 22 pages of exclaiming, there comes a point of realisation and acceptance that sure, there are people out there who don't grasp conversations in the way you do, and it's possible to 'get over it already.' SusanDoris is as she is.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris, the message comes through time and again to me that you believe that those who have any kind of faith are not up to date with the discoveries of the last couple of hundred years. You seem to think that this 'new knowledge' has superseded any idea of the existence of God, and so if believers would only learn, we would throw out our faith.

    Please let me know whether this is what you believe.
    Of course not!!! I do not live in a cloud cuckoo land of make-believe, I listen to the news, I do not live in a fantasy past or present. I don't try and pretend that things are other than what they are , whether in the case of religious beliefs or the material side. I subscribe to charities that I feel can do some good for children. I keep my feet firmly on the ground, and I do not wear any metaphorical blinkers.

    since this is Hell, I will mention that I do not think there is any god to do anything, but you know that I think. I also could not fail to be aware that there are multi millions who do.

    You say 'of course not!' but the message you are repeating endlessly implies that you do believe it. Please think on this.

  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Doc Tor and RooK deserve bounteous, serious goodies at Admin/Host Appreciation Days for attending to this thread. :not worthy:
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    [to Susan Doris] Please think on this.
    :dielaughing:
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    [to Susan Doris] Please think on this.
    :dielaughing:

    I know. A vain last effort, with a simple plea.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I wonder if anyone will ever say or admit that I have got a point?

    The very first time that you ever manage to make a point that is relevant to the discussion at hand - or even to the posts you are directly quoting and pretending to reply to - we'll have a giant fucking celebration of hope and thankfulness.

    And know who I am when I say this: I'm a barely-restrain anti-theist who views organized religion as one of the greatest banes to afflict society. Your efforts are not aligned with mine in any useful way. Because you suck.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    SD has also said that as scientific knowledge progresses, there will be less and less reason to believe in God.

    If she believes that, she's got little understanding of into human behaviour.
    I think we all would be able to get along better (!) if she just accepted that there are gods - it's a simple thing. But then I suppose she would change her tune to 'it's all in the mind'.
    Now that's an interesting way to phrase it: 'acceptded that there are gods'.
    On what basis should I 'accept' this? And why?
    It is patently obvious that people believe there is/are God/god/s but I cannot think of a reason why I should too!

    I was being careful! I did not say that you need to accept a god for yourself, only that you need to accept that there are gods. If you remember, I explained my own belief some several hundred posts ago and you commented that you would need to read David Boulton's book IIRC.
    Thank you - yes, I had forgotten that, so have googled him.
    There are many gods worshipped, followed, adored and so on. Always will be. For those who follow these gods, they are real gods, of course. The least you and I can do is to acknowledge this
    I agree and do not think I have ever not acknowledged this. It is the way things are and it is usually only in places like this that the subject comes up.
    and respect the god-followers. We don't have to accept the gods for ourselves. If you could accept this philosophy, things might go more smoothly for you and others on the Ship?
    I long ago found that [[philosophy too - by respecting the human person, one is not obliged to respect the beliefs, and I think that the more we learn about life, the universe and everything, the more this is likely to hold true. But that is of course a personal view.

    Could you please remind me which book it is of David Boulton to which you referred? Thank you.

  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Susan you appear to understand *that* other people value other kinds of truth claims, you do not appear to understand *why* they do. And this goes way beyond religion.

    You commented several times in your responses, I hope you don’t think I didn’t know that. The way you have been debating on here suggested you didn’t.
    I refuse to use sarcasm, so I will ljust sigh deeply, shake my head in disbelief and remind myself that I am reasonably intelligent, even though I'm 82!!

    Of course I understand why people believe. It has been a constant throughout history and is not going to become simply and only apart of history for as long as humans are around. I think there will be a gradual lessening of religious beliefs but my thoughts on that really don't matter since I'll be dead and gone.

    You are talking about belief, as if you are thinking only about faith.
    I try always to make it clear how I see the difference between a 100% faith belief and beliefs for which the faith required is backed up by knowledge and, if they are not, then they come under the hedig of don't-know-yets or simply unknowns.
    Justice, honour, equality, are not scientific concepts. Guilt is not a scientific concept. Murder is not a scientific concept.
    These words are labels for aspects of human behaviour. The behaviours can be examined and studied as scientifically as possible, but nevre completely. They can be taken back and studied in the light of the ToE. I can't see that any one of them would not be able to be categorised as being a part of the Theory. No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong there.
    you believe scientific hypotheses are a higher form of knowledge ?
    Well, that's a new one on me. I think that the study of the sciences and Theories gained from using the scientific method are likely to be more useful and reliable than guesswork, but I have never said I believe that 'scientific hypotheses are a higher form of knowledge'. They either take our knowledge base forward or are discarded because they fail in some way.

  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris, the message comes through time and again to me that you believe that those who have any kind of faith are not up to date with the discoveries of the last couple of hundred years. You seem to think that this 'new knowledge' has superseded any idea of the existence of God, and so if believers would only learn, we would throw out our faith.

    Please let me know whether this is what you believe.
    Of course not!!! I do not live in a cloud cuckoo land of make-believe, I listen to the news, I do not live in a fantasy past or present. I don't try and pretend that things are other than what they are , whether in the case of religious beliefs or the material side. I subscribe to charities that I feel can do some good for children. I keep my feet firmly on the ground, and I do not wear any metaphorical blinkers.

    since this is Hell, I will mention that I do not think there is any god to do anything, but you know that I think. I also could not fail to be aware that there are multi millions who do.

    You say 'of course not!' but the message you are repeating endlessly implies that you do believe it. Please think on this.
    It occurs to me that it might be a good idea if you could accurately define this 'message' you think I am 'repeating endlessly'?

    I can assure you the message which has been repeatedly posted to me was understood quite a way bback in this thread!
    [/quote]

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    You are still not really getting the fundamental point that there are different forms of knowledge, and different forms of truth claims.

    Non-scientific knowledge is not guesswork, it is a different form of acquiring, developing and analysing.

    Justice is not a human behaviour, it’s a human idea.

    It’s a question of fitting the approach to the issue.

    The way you engage suggests that you see all forms of knowledge as better or worse applications of positivist scientific reasoning. And that positivist scientific reasoning is the best form of knowledge and truth derived from it as inherently more valuable than truths derived from different approaches.

    You can not, for example, derive a system of morality from scientific reasoning and experimentation alone. (You don’t have to derive it from faith.)

    I would argue that some sort of socially shared moral system (which in practice is a combination of culturally shared norms and law) is much more important and pervasively influential in my life than the fact that a small number of people in my society have a sophisticated model in their head about how the sun works.
  • SusanDoris you asked for the title of the book by David Boulton. Here is a link.
    But I suggest you don't bother unless you really want to engage with the concept of non-theism (which it seems is not what you want to do judging by your (non) response to my post).
    How about pondering this and some up-to-date publication on the subject portrayed (The Authoritarian Personality).
  • You are still not really getting the fundamental point that there are different forms of knowledge, and different forms of truth claims.
    I read your post then it was time for a walk ... and I spent the time pondering on the phrases you have used. Thinking about knowledge in different forms, I wonder if maybe it could all be categorised under a multitude of headings but far too elusive to be pinned down. I think the three general headings of fact, fiction and unknown should more or less cover them? Different truth claims are perhaps more accessible to being fact, fiction or don't-knows. And always an allowance for that small gap just in case things change.
    Non-scientific knowledge is not guesswork, it is a different form of acquiring, developing and analysing.
    I have listened to that over and over and I find it puzzling.
    Non-scientific knowledge - Humann reactions and emotions? Responses to all aesthetic aspects of life? Subjective opinions?
    analysing - Different how?
    I would be grateful for a definition of the phrase and the other connected words - in this context. But if you think I've missed the point again, then I shall quite understand if you choose not to respond. (<wry smile> with zero sarcasm)
    Justice is not a human behaviour, it’s a human idea.
    But I'd say it is an idea that derives from an understanding of human behaviour.
    It’s a question of fitting the approach to the issue.

    The way you engage suggests that you see all forms of knowledge as better or worse applications of positivist scientific reasoning. And that positivist scientific reasoning is the best form of knowledge and truth derived from it as inherently more valuable than truths derived from different approaches.
    That is not the way I live my life. If I did, I would not be interested in following discussions on message boards. The more I learn about human nature, the more interesting life becomes.
    You can not, for example, derive a system of morality from scientific reasoning and experimentation alone.
    That is definitely an 'of course not' answer. Morality derives naturally from the most useful way of enabling the survival of the group and is always open to change ,whether such change is considered to be 'good' or 'bad'.
    (You don’t have to derive it from faith.)
    Agreed - it is usually mostly practical.
    I would argue that some sort of socially shared moral system (which in practice is a combination of culturally shared norms and law) is much more important and pervasively influential in my life than the fact that a small number of people in my society have a sophisticated model in their head about how the sun works.
    Absolutely agree! However, if you do have some understanding of how the sun works*, then such pieces of information enrich life, don't they? It is the rainbow anecdote again - knowing how it is formed doubles the pleasure of seeing one rather than halving it. (especially double and sometimes triple rainbows in Australia!)

    *It's all about helium and stuff. When my reader was reading the parts about the sun, we did not attempt to understand the details, but hope we got the vague gist.
  • SusanDoris you asked for the title of the book by David Boulton. Here is a link.
    But I suggest you don't bother unless you really want to engage with the concept of non-theism (which it seems is not what you want to do judging by your (non) response to my post).
    I apologise for 'non-response'. I went to the link and read the intro paragraph. When, about 50 years ago, I first read and heard more about Quakers , I thought it might well suit me - the lack of paraphernalia, church services etc, but one visit to the local Quaker group quickly convinced me otherwise but I don't think they were at all typical! I liked music and singing and orders of service.
    How about pondering this and some up-to-date publication on the subject portrayed (The Authoritarian Personality).
    As far as I can see it is a picture of a person filling the right-hand side and a small person to the left, but I cannot make out any details.
  • The link is to picture of a man in a suit sitting at a desk to the right of the image, holding a megaphone, down which he is shouting at a scaled down man, about the same size as the megaphone mouth, standing on the table in front of him, flinching away from whatever is being said. The small man is slightly to the left of centre of the picture. The url suggests the picture accompanies an article in Psychologist World.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    I admit I haven't read all 990 posts above, mainly because I like Susan, but I did do some skimming and found out she was in trouble for not always answering people's questions, never changing her position in all the years she's been here and being condescending. How is she different than most of us?
  • The link is to picture of a man in a suit sitting at a desk to the right of the image, holding a megaphone, down which he is shouting at a scaled down man, about the same size as the megaphone mouth, standing on the table in front of him, flinching away from whatever is being said. The small man is slightly to the left of centre of the picture. The url suggests the picture accompanies an article in Psychologist World.
    thank you for that. I'll have another look at NTF's post and the question of authority.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    I admit I haven't read all 990 posts above, mainly because I like Susan, but I did do some skimming and found out she was in trouble for not always answering people's questions, never changing her position in all the years she's been here and being condescending. How is she different than most of us?
    :) Nice one!
  • Twilight wrote: »
    I admit I haven't read all 990 posts above, mainly because I like Susan, but I did do some skimming and found out she was in trouble for not always answering people's questions, never changing her position in all the years she's been here and being condescending. How is she different than most of us?

    You managed to misread people's complaints. Because you're a dick.

    This does not surprise me.

  • SusanDoris, I did include the previous message for reference, which I thought to be clear and simple, but let's try again, one last time:

    The message comes through time and again to me: you believe that if those who have any kind of faith in God would only bring themselves up to date with the scientific progress of the last couple of hundred years, which to you supercedes any concept of the existence of God, we would jettison our faith.

    You said that of course you don't believe that, and yet this is what you seem to say time and again. Please think on this.

    You don't need to reply. I'm out of here.

  • SusanDoris you asked for the title of the book by David Boulton. Here is a link.
    But I suggest you don't bother unless you really want to engage with the concept of non-theism (which it seems is not what you want to do judging by your (non) response to my post).
    Having gone to the link and read the intro paragraph then googled non-theism, I think it sounds like a slightly elusive concept. It is not that I do not wish to deal with it, but I do not know enough about it to comment constructively.
    How about pondering this and some up-to-date publication on the subject portrayed (The Authoritarian Personality).
    I have known many authoritarian characters, some who wielded their authority wisely and some who definitely did not! Again I do not think I know enough to make useful comments. I can only speak from personal experience.
    There are some in life who have natural authority; people just know they can be relied on to deal with things. If they also have something about them which creates a sense of confidence , then they will use their authority wisely. Those who do not so inspire hurt too many people while they are using the authority they have.

    The psychology I studied was connected with teacher training but then, like most people, I have picked up all sorts of ideas about it over the years.

    I always found it so interesting that, within a day or two of getting a new classs in September, it was clear who was the natural leader, the one to whom others would look to if something had to be organised; the one who had no qualms or worries about taking messages to the Head, or asking me for something on behalf of the others.
    They were not the most popular, centre-of-the-crowd, but did not feel the need to be and knew what they could and could not do.

    Personally, I have never felt nervous of, or intimidated by any person with authority. I have accepted and respected their authority )but not when it was badly used) ).
    The early years of my marriage were frightening, but then I was not dealing with authority, I was dealing with controlling violence.

    I hope you are going to write about your views on authority.`


  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    I admit I haven't read all 990 posts above, mainly because I like Susan, but I did do some skimming and found out she was in trouble for not always answering people's questions, never changing her position in all the years she's been here and being condescending. How is she different than most of us?

    You managed to misread people's complaints. Because you're a dick.

    This does not surprise me.
    Those three complaints were lifted word for word from posts on this thread. I don't know how "condescending" can be misread to anything but "condescending." Were those the only complaints? No. I wasn't trying to cover all 1000 plus posts.

    But then, you who call women "dicks," seem to have your own problems with word understandings.
  • Then stop behaving like a dick by jumping into a thread you've admitted you barely read and dispensing your ill-informed judgement. Then I won't call you a dick. You dick.
  • SusanDoris: the authoritarian personality is not someone who simply has authority. I cannot possibly say what I think about the personality as it is too complicated and it's many years since I read up on it. Others on The Ship know about it but I suggest that it is something you need to read up for yourself. It also would help you to understand the 'cartoon' and place yourself as one or other (or both) of the subjects (gender apart, of course).
This discussion has been closed.