Science Forums: mooeypoo - Viewing Profile - Science Forums

I think the question is a definition of reason.

Hobbes, for instance, separate personal reason (more or less meaning "what's beneficial for the individual's survival") from communal reason. Also, his way of constructing what "reason" means in general is more similar to a process rather than a conclusion.

I highly recommend reading Leviathan, by the way, but here's a good short summary of the reason quote:

Quote

Source: http://www.sparknote.../section2.rhtml

The biggest challenge isn't necessarily agreeing that a society should go by reason, it's deciding what that reason means. The fact many people consider a specific issue at hand does not mean they are making the "right" decision at the end, we've seen this throughout history. Not too long ago the vast majority of the US thought african americans and blacks should not marry white caucasian partners. I'm not sure if we'd define that as a reasonable conclusion, though, even though it was "strictly" democratic (majority rules).

Democracy, at least in my eyes, is more than just majority rule, it's protection of the minority. Doing that is not easy, though, because individuals in society are often not directly in "contact" with minorities and are often unable to really consider the rights of these groups.

Also, there's a lot ot be said about "Self evident" truths in Jefferson's writing. I agree that it's a self evident truth that all men are created equal, but not all society agrees with that. There are people on the extreme that believe some "races" are not inherently equal to others, and some people on the not-so-extreme that believe wholeheartedly that some sexual orientations do not deserve equal tretment either.

Whose "self evident truth" do we go by in a democracy?

Also, how do you control for groups or people who convince others with twisted "logic"? Politics (maybe sadly) is not like science, there's no "scientific method" for politics that makes people step away from their subjective opinions and feelings to deduce a rational result that is then peer-reviewed. It's more a balance of multiple sides of the spectrum where there might be more than one good answer.

Democracy goes by reason as much as reason is the decision made by the majority, while still having provisions to preserve basic the rights (or supposedly so) of the minorities.

The fact that it doesn't always work shows that reason isn't as simple as Jefferson and the founding fathers made it. I, by the way, think that is part of the problem of the constitution. It seems to be quite vaguely spelled out in some cases which leads people to argue both sides of the point as the original intent. Either the founding fathers wanted to make it broad enough to satisfy many groups in society, or they thought the underlying truths are so 'self evident' that no one would misread them, but people do, and people argue about the meanings and conclusions of those self-evident truths as well as the truths themselves.

It seems to me there's a bit more grey-area to democracy than strictly going by a somewhat vague statement of 'reason'.

~mooey


P.S
Consider as an example the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".

• Men in society before the 1920s used this to prevent women from voting ("men" are equal, not women)
• Religious folk in this country up to this day claim that this is evidence for some religious affiliation by the founding fathers because of the mentioning of the Creator, and since it says that these rights were endowed by the creator, many of them use that to say that we should go by the biblical law.

I (and I assume many others) disagree with both points, but these points are not as easy to dismiss based on the text ALONE. They show that "reason" is (a) subjective and depends on the group that makes the decision and (b) evolving with time.

Omg, I'm so totally doing that...

Cap, on 18 May 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

.... I completely didn't think abut that, it makes so much more sense now. I don't know why I had this weird idea that the force is diminshed the higher up it goes, as if it is only effective when it "hits" the ground.. that's totally false and against Newton's 3rd law. And yet, I was so confused because I knew the contraption with a model plane will not launch into space, right? it would hover somewhere..

Now it makes sense. The weight of the hoses! Ah, I feel like an idiot Seriously, there are rocket launch formulas that involve how a rocket gets *lighter* as it goes up because it loses the weight of the used fuel, and yet in this case with the model plane and hoses, it's exactly the opposite, it "gains" weight the higher it goes!

Bah, I feel silly now!

Thanks for the answers guys, it helps a lot, and thanks for snapping me back to reality, Capn

~mooey

Okay, let me organize my question better.

I want to recreate this effect in my back yard with garden hozes and a model airplane. Yes, I know that water is not the same as jet fuel gas, but the principle should be more or less the same -- force downwards lifting the little toy up. To make it balanced, I'll put the toy on a square plate and 4 hoses, one in each side, so it's more or less balanced. Let's ignore the balance for a moment though (theoretically speaking if all 4 hoses are equal, I hve equal forces on all sides, reality be damned)

Obviously, if I have a low stream in the hose nozzle (lower pressure coming out) the contraption will go to some relatively low height, and if I increase the flow (pressure through the nozzle) it will soar HIGHER. I know this from observation. I'm trying to see if I can calculate *how high* it can go based on how *strong* my flow is through the garden hose, knowing the mass of the toy plane.

Does this make sense?

Copperhead, on 10 May 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

I disagree with half the logic you're using, but regardless, I think the main issue here is your premise. You *start* with the assumption that there IS a god, when there is no evidence to suggest this at all. Then, you "eliminate" arbitrarily according to your own logic. That is, if you speak to a wiccan, they not only will disagree with your logic, they'll likely offer an equally compelling reason why you should take THEIR angle. I know, I used to believe in it, and this above would not even begin to convince me, not by a long shot.

On top of that, your claim that the abrahamic religions "coincide" with scientific knowledge is a stretch at best, and depends on an interpretation of the biblical text. If you read it literally, it goes *against* science, with claims that make little sense in terms of biology, evolution and physics. From the creation of light *after* stars (completely against physics) to the idea that rabbits are carnivors. It doesn't fit.

You may, of course, interpret the bible differently, and then make sure the biblical account fits science, but that is a manipulation of the text. You can't say that the text fits science, you can say that your BELIEF makes the INTERPRETATION of the text fit science.

Finally, that too is irrelevant. I can show you how Stargate SG-1 fits science very nicely, as well as quite large parts of Star Trek, not to mention Battlestar Galactica. Does it mean we came from a hybrid of alien and cyborgs? Does it even count as a remotely plausible logical case?

You need to first establish that God's existence is plausible, then that this PARTICULAR god is plausible, then that this god requires some sort of worship, etc. You can't start with the conclusion and fit everything in. Not only is that not good science, it's not critical thinking.

I actually think the idea that there are multiple gods is much more plausible than having a single one. It can explain the problem of evil, it can explain problems with subjective and social-dependent morality, as well as different mythos for different cultures. As far as I'm concerned, Xena's world seems a lot more plausible to me than Abraham's single all-loving-till-he-kills-everyone-he-is-angry-at God.

There's zero evidence for either story, and I don't quite see how either premise is required, so I remain an agnostic atheist. If I had to choose, though, and the world was a false dichotomy (as you seem to present it fro your initial quote above, ignoring the possibility there are *other* options than the ones you presented, eh? then Xena's world seems more plausible to me than the offered alternative. It has the same amount (if not more) of "evidence", written ancient texts, and ancient believers. If those are the criteria, I can't see how you can dismiss it off hand.



~mooey

Villain, on 11 May 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

False dichotomy, anyone?

There are quite a number of other options, Villain. To name a few, there's a possibility that there is a god but he/she isn't what we think it is, or that there's no god but evolution made us lean towards the spiritual (which makes us want to believe regardless of fact, and also makes religious folk not "broken") and.. well, quite a number of other possibilities.

I would stay away from "either or" in these cases.

That said, I would be careful of your final sentence. You are saying "without the need for constant empirical evidence", you know what? I'll settle for a ONE TIME empirical evidence that stands to scrutiny, I don't need this issue to keep being reaffirmed if the evidence it has are strong enough.

Then again, if god actually real, evidence would just naturally "fall" to our laps, as happens constantly with things like General Relativity and gravity. We're not constantly trying to prove these theories, not anymore, they're fairly well established, but everywhere we look, we find evidence, because they are real events and reality "can't avoid it". It is the way things work.

I consider it a problem that there are no continuous "incidental" evidence for God's existence, I really do, that makes me wonder if he exists at all, and I think it should make everyone wonder that, especially in light of the fact that there are no evidence at all without have "continuous" ones.