tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post2281515886967740580..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: New Scientist - interview with me on bullshitStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15697150443130507112012-01-20T16:43:33.449+00:002012-01-20T16:43:33.449+00:00it's absolutely fine when you say that, "...it's absolutely fine when you say that, "systems that draw people in and hold them captive so they become willing slaves of claptrap".<br />But don't you think the way you're trying to defy some logic is also a claptrap where one should believe you and ignore the logic behind other topic. And really there are infinite things in this universe which is beyond the scope of our mind.Ghazihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03548200070571971382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32221114754248992092012-01-18T12:48:33.727+00:002012-01-18T12:48:33.727+00:00>>many of the claims made about things behin...>>many of the claims made about things behind this veil have empirically observable consequences and that makes them scientifically testable.<br /><br />What will happen to me after I die? I submit that no answer to that question is scientifically testable.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-57523429962006129662012-01-17T21:44:38.028+00:002012-01-17T21:44:38.028+00:00Well, there are more things in heaven and earth, S...Well, there are more things in heaven and earth, Stephen, than are dreamt of in your philosophy...<br /><br />Just kidding. (But it's true. Oh, wait...)<br /><br />My interests are mainly in Christian philosophical theology and the philosophy of religion (although I don't think I'm particularly good at either). I guess one of the main concerns I have with scientism is that it claims there is <em>no</em> "veil," or that there is a veil and everything behind it is scientifically testable. This is exemplified, for example, in scientific studies of intercessory "prayer," which folks like Richard Swinburne have argued (convincingly, in my view) are deeply flawed. [1] Humility is a virtue, as they say...<br /><br />[1] See, for example, Swinburne's article <em><a href="http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Eorie0087/pdf_files/Responses%20to%20Controversies/Response%20to%20a%20Statistical%20Study.pdf" rel="nofollow">Response to a Statistical Study of the Effect of Petitionary Prayer</a></em>.Tom Larsenhttp://tomlarsen.org/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33423483294579553412012-01-17T14:54:41.792+00:002012-01-17T14:54:41.792+00:00It is amusing that on the New Scientist comment se...It is amusing that on the New Scientist comment section, one of the commenters questions the scientific basis for black holes!<br /><br />It's an ANALOGY!Daniel Polowetzky https://www.blogger.com/profile/04299950687312400826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-8862331135081767182012-01-17T12:56:35.909+00:002012-01-17T12:56:35.909+00:00Helpfully, for illustration purposes, many comment...Helpfully, for illustration purposes, many commenters on the interview are busy diving head first into the very intellectual black holes you warn against.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04982524614308121228noreply@blogger.com