Skip to main content

View Diary: I am a fundamentalist (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "anti-foundationalism"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lonely Texan

    Who expressed such a sentiment?

    The concern raised was about use of the terms "Fundamentalist" and "sacred" in relation to a text written by people, not handed down by gods.

    How you get from there to "anti-foundationalism" is puzzling.

    As for your assertion that "Science, Math and Reason are ideologies in every sense of the term", mere assertion does not make it so.

    Science is a method of making hypotheses based on observation or logic, testing the veracity of those hypotheses by empirical experimentation, and  discarding the hypotheses if they are not supported by the evidence.

    The purpose of this endeavor is to derive useful models of the physical world. Useful in the sense that they have predictive value.

    For example, based on known orbital mechanics and basic physical principles, we can propel a spacecraft with pinpoint accuracy to another planet. We can do so repeatedly and predictably, given the same initial conditions.

    Science is prevalent because it works. There is nothing "ideological" about it, certainly not "in every sense of the word.

    To call Math an "ideology" is even more absurd.

    2 + 2 = 4 no matter what your ideological beliefs. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

    As for Reason, it is merely one of the tools in the scientific method and critical thinking toolkits.

    If you assert that these are mere "ideologies", I challenge you to defy any accepted theory of science.

    For example, jump from a tall building and believe gravity does not apply.

    For people unfamiliar with the use of impressive terms to make unfounded illogical arguments, just read the comment above this one.

    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

    by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:52:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      I wasn't attacking only your argument, just as I was thinking that most here didn't really understand what the argument was.  

      Ideology, under the common definition is a set of beliefs that support a group of practices.

      For example whether you find it good practice to jump off a roof or find it incomprehensible because it will lead to death.

      Those who find it incomprehensible are believers in the laws of nature as fundamental to experience, or, in other words, foundational.

      Again, if you want to learn more please read up on the genesis of the argument that TINS is making, it would be helpful for you to know what you are talking about.

      "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

      by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:20:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The consequences of jumping off the roof (0+ / 0-)

        are the same, no matter what you believe about it.

        That information provided free of charge courtesy of science, math and reason, none of which are an ideology, each of which are means to test beliefs against reality.

        Proven to be 100% effective whenever consistently applied correctly according to directions.

        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

        by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:36:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Congrats, you found out you are a fundamentalist (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon

          You justify your belief with what is called fundamental or foundational axioms, a belief in irrefutable empirical induction, what you consider to be proof. That is the only objective rendering of your argument.

          "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

          by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:43:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not at all. In the presence of contrary evidence (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lonely Texan

            there is no conclusion which I will not amend as a result.

            That is the opposite of fundamentalism.

            My reliance on empirical induction is a practical result of an unbroken history of countless instances of efficacy, and exactly zero examples of failure, throughout the entire scope of human history of which I am aware.

            If you present me with a single example of the failure of empirical induction as a metholody for constructing useful models of the physical world - useful in the sense of its predictive value, I will no longer consider it as a safe bet.

            Science is not about absolute certainty, it is about utility. At a certain point, 0.00000000000000000001% probability becomes, for all intents and purposes, the same as certainty - except that it still provides the possibility of revision in the face of proof of error.

            In practice, jumping off the roof produces predictable results. You are free to claim otherwise, but until and unless you are willing to put your body where your mouth is, it is mere dogmatic assertion. Ironic that you seek to condemn rationalism using rationalist argumentation tools such as logic, yet won't go all the way and back up mere assertion with evidence.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 12:18:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So therefore you have essentialized (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joanneleon

              a formalism, and made it fundamental.

              If you present me with a single example of the failure of empirical induction as a metholody [sic]for constructing useful models of the physical world - useful in the sense of its predictive value, I will no longer consider it as a safe bet.

              The only thing that can disprove empirical induction is empirical induction: a tautology typical of all ideology.

              BTW: Here is where you are not getting the entire argument.

              Ironic that you seek to condemn rationalism using rationalist argumentation tools such as logic, yet won't go all the way and back up mere assertion with evidence.

              I actually am not arguing against empirical induction, or rationalism, I arguing that not all forms of fundamentalism or ideology are bad, false, or un-progressive.

              "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

              by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 12:31:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry, empirical induction as the ONLY (0+ / 0-)

                answer to empirical induction is not a tautology but a closed system - which allows no challenger beside itself.

                "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

                by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 12:35:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are employing logic to disprove logic (0+ / 0-)

                  Your argument is meaningless unless one accepts the very premises you question.

                  As for your final statement, if you assert that x is not y, y being the more commonly accepted interpretation, then you need to present at least one single bit of evidence that x is not y.

                  Otherwise, you are merely asserting without substance, and, since you reject the methodology of rational thought, there is no basis upon which to evaluate the relative merits of your argument.

                  Saying, "empirical induction is a dogma, but not all dogmas are bad" s a circular argument without utility. You haven't established the veracity of your initial premise.

                  In fact, you continually make mere assertions, do not back them up with anything, and yet attack the notion of making assertions that are subject to falsification as dogmatic.

                  Your argument is faulty on its face. Of course, by neatly discrediting logic, you have made yourself immune to that charge. You have also made the conversation utterly meaningless and useless.

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 01:21:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Which is exactly what all ideology does, (0+ / 0-)

                    even empirical induction, because only empirical induction and logic is accepted in the closed and fundamentalist system of empirical induction.

                    There can be no challenge to the one and true God/Church/State/Power and only God/Chruch/State/Power can make revisions.

                    Your ideology is inauthentic.

                    At least I admit to my own fundamentalism.

                    "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

                    by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:13:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Inisting that others share your mindset (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lonely Texan

                      is the manifestation of a closed mind. You have, indeed, demonstrated your own fundamentalism.

                      Simply asserting that all others are fundamentalist as well is not proof of anything.

                      Since you reject a priori the notion of logical proof (yet continually attempt to use it to prove your point), there is no basis for your imputation of beliefs to others.

                      If your own fundamentalism does not include even the simplest principle of not presuming to speak for all others nor presuming to be the only person to know the true truth about the world, it is trivial for me to argue that it is self-contradictory, invalid by any thought system but your own, and counterproductive.

                      It certainly is useless as far as making any predictions about the world.

                      In fact, your use of sentences in logical constructs undermines you own premise.

                      This has been fun, but useless.

                      Ultimately, you have derailed the conversation into a fruitless sophist exercise, whose only purpose seem to hypocritically tell all others they have no grounds to challenge any of your assertions, while you reserve to yourself the right to challenge everyone else's assertions.

                      If you actually argue this in your everyday life, it must be a lonely world indeed.

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:48:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Here talking to you buddy, (0+ / 0-)

                        I have been trying to recommend you actually read elsewhere for the roots of this sophistry, your sophistry.

                        "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

                        by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:13:02 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Presuming that others have not read something (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Lonely Texan

                          because they differ with your beliefs is more manifestation of your dogmatic thinking, not evidence of the ignorance of others.

                          It is also a fallacious form of argumentation.

                          Since you reject the notion that logic is valid, there is no point in even having a discussion. You make a claim based on logical principles, yet when the logical flaws in your argument are revealed, you claim to reject logic.

                          That is mere sophistry, and I have encountered the mentality many times in debates with Creationists. You apparently think you have discovered something new and wonderful, because a college professor assigned to it impressive sounding multi-syllabic words.

                          It is a tired old philosophy that was dealt with in ancient Greece, and discarded because it is sterile, impotent and useless. It leads nowhere.

                          And none of it sheds any light on the questionable values this diary promotes, nor the critiques presented to them.

                          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:23:49 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I know the discussion is tiresome, (0+ / 0-)

                            its why I haven't put much effort into this discussion, made my responses short, I didn't comment in the original diary.

                            It is very very old. TINS opened it, and I was never really interested in discussing it.

                            "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

                            by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 04:04:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Simpler version: you could simply be wrong (0+ / 0-)

                      your argument could be erroneous and your logic whatever it is, flawed.

                      Your dogma could be incorrect. It could be you who is inauthentic.

                      Yet you presume to tell all others that they are wrong.

                      Your philosophy is self-defeating. If not wrong, it is at least useless.

                      Since you yourself do not actually practice what you preach, your credibility is nil in any case.

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:52:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am not preaching it, (0+ / 0-)

                        the funny thing is that you and TINS ARE.

                        "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

                        by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:11:22 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Preaching what? (0+ / 0-)

                          I came to this diary questioning the choice of the commonly understood word "fundamentalist" and "sacred" referring to text, in the light of the real-world consequences of the real-world use of those mindsets as commonly understood in the real world, including entrenchment, hostility, and, ultimately violence and hate.

                          I suggested alternatives that are less divisive and can create the foundation (note the critical distinction) for common ground.

                          I asked clarifying questions which were not answered, and I challenged an absolutist position that most definitely was preaching. (It is ironic, by the way, that you don't apply the "preaching" critique to the diarist, given the contents of the diary).

                          You have responded with sophistry and straw men, and efforts to entangle others in utterly irrelevant discussions that shed no light on the subject of this diary nor my critique.

                          I am not the one writing a diary proudly proclaiming fundamentalism. Hard to see how I am "preaching".

                          But then, you seem to use words in your own way, ignoring their common meaning, so perhaps your sympathy with the diarist is understandable.

                          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:20:15 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site