Matt Dillahunty on Solipsism

[Breakingthewall]

45 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

One is the loneliest number.

One implies the possibility of two. Without two, one disappears. 

[Leo Gura]

Textbook example of problems with rationalism.

A human who's stupid enough to think he can rationally comprehend God.

Edited 14 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

9 hours ago, Monster Energy said:

But I think if he was ever fully honest with his own position, and didn’t build such a strong identity around atheism and materialism, he might end up becoming more spiritual, like Leo for example, not in a religious way, but in a deeper sense.

Matt has largely new atheist, science dicksucking views - One of his misconceptions is largely underestimating how much testimonial evidence is actually involved in science and how much trust it necessarily relies on (including social, judicial,financial, cultural pressures and incentives and institutions) for it to work on a global scale.

Once you remove all the previously mentioned shit, you will either have to trust things on blind faith or you have to literally validate everything on your own (including every single occurence of a peer-review cause you cant just take an institution's or a scientist's word for it  ; including every single past experiment that were done, because how do you actually know and can make sure that those were actually done; and every single fact that science books mention about physics , biology, chemistry etc).

Yeah scientist do experiments and validate things and peer review things etc, but with the large set of caveats that I previously mentioned.

If you take a single scientist, that scientist will necessarily need to take a large set of things for granted (involving experiments that were done in the past, including peer reviews that were allegedly done by other scientist and institutions, including the accuracy of the content in science books etc). A single scientist will only validate a fraction of a fraction of those things.

And relying on those previously mentioned structures go much deeper. You cant even do experiments without them -  for instance, if you are a scientist who wants to run an experiment on patients, even there you need to somewhat rely on the patients collectively not fucking you up and trolling you by taking some pills before the experiment (without you knowing about it) and other institutions providing accurate medical data about your patients etc.

--

So then how can science work? Science works relatively well on a global scale, because of the checks and balances and because of the values and motivation that the previously mentioned social, judicial, financial, cultural structures and institutions provide - Those structures make and incentivise scientists to generally provide honest and accurate testimonials and feedback about the experiments they do, about the peer-reviews they do, and about the data they provide , about content that they write down in science books and about the way they teach next generations.

Edited 8 hours ago by zurew

[Willy Phallicus]

10 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

One implies the possibility of two. Without two, one disappears. 

Two is a made up convenience like time to express something beyond logic.

Source is source, there is only 1.  It cannot be understood but like the wise words from that old Palmolive commercial, "Madge, you're soaking in it".

[Monster Energy]

13 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

One is the loneliest number.

And the most attractive number

 

[Monster Energy]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Textbook example of problems with rationalism.

A human who's stupid enough to think he can rationally comprehend God.

That’s a bit of a strawman. No one’s claiming you can fully comprehend God through reason alone.

 

[Monster Energy]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Matt has largely new atheist, science dicksucking views - One of his misconceptions is largely underestimating how much testimonial evidence is actually involved in science and how much trust it necessarily relies on (including social, judicial,financial, cultural pressures and incentives and institutions) for it to work on a global scale.

Once you remove all the previously mentioned shit, you will either have to trust things on blind faith or you have to literally validate everything on your own (including every single occurence of a peer-review cause you cant just take an institution's or a scientist's word for it  ; including every single past experiment that were done, because how do you actually know and can make sure that those were actually done; and every single fact that science books mention about physics , biology, chemistry etc).

Yeah scientist do experiments and validate things and peer review things etc, but with the large set of caveats that I previously mentioned.

If you take a single scientist, that scientist will necessarily need to take a large set of things for granted (involving experiments that were done in the past, including peer reviews that were allegedly done by other scientist and institutions, including the accuracy of the content in science books etc). A single scientist will only validate a fraction of a fraction of those things.

And relying on those previously mentioned structures go much deeper. You cant even do experiments without them -  for instance, if you are a scientist who wants to run an experiment on patients, even there you need to somewhat rely on the patients collectively not fucking you up and trolling you by taking some pills before the experiment (without you knowing about it) and other institutions providing accurate medical data about your patients etc.

--

So then how can science work? Science works relatively well on a global scale, because of the checks and balances and because of the values and motivation that the previously mentioned social, judicial, financial, cultural structures and institutions provide - Those structures make and incentivise scientists to generally provide honest and accurate testimonials and feedback about the experiments they do, about the peer-reviews they do, and about the data they provide , about content that they write down in science books and about the way they teach next generations.

Not a single lie or illogical point. Well done.