The Great Idealistic Gaze. Scientific Materialism/Futurism

[Joker]

There is a new religion in the world which in many ways is unlike traditional ones which many associate themselves with but in many regards perpetuates the same traditional absurdities under new technical representations.

Basically during the early 19th century unto the present we have seen a social shift of religious behavior where the once great objective traditional religions of fictional gods have transformed themselves into a secular technocracy through scientifical materialism where the coined expression of progress has become god like into idolized worship by many who call themselves academicians.

It is a religious faith in the future and a belief that men will come to some final destination of global technical salvation or a era without confliction.

I am so blatant to say that technical progress doesn’t exist beyond the dreaming or dreamer of it.

I look at progress as a sort of opium that tries to stave off existential fear much like it’s objective religious predecessors from the past.

The cosmos is a relative one which revolves around relativity and I find it hard to believe that one constructed meaning namely technical progress that man creates is the only right one absolutely.

I call this new religion, secular religionism. What is secular religionism?

To me it means a atheist or secular progressivist who embraces futurism and scientifical materialism two equally religious systemizations guided by technocracy in comparison to earlier traditional religions.

It is a transformation of traditional religions into a technocratic society guided by technical metaphysical dogma and dualisms.

[b]Examples would be:

Humanism,scientism, transhumanism, futurism, market equilbrium, clinical psychology and scientifical materialism.[/b]

Illustrated below is just a small number of assumptions that it is built upon:

It assumes men are innately moral.

It assumes there is a destiny for mankind that must be followed.

It assumes there is some utopia crossroad in the future by that of globalism.

It assumes that equilibrium will come out of that which is the markets.

It assumes that our history has meaning.

It assumes that there is only one specific narrow objective route of evolution.

It assumes that market economics will deliver men into a future without conflict or suffering.

It assumes that the world needs saving.

It assumes that there was somthing inherently wrong or flawed with men’s original primitive nature that needs reforming.

It assumes that man’s anthrocentric perception on existence isn’t in conflict with the enviromental world that surrounds us.

It assumes that men have some higher calling other than what they already are.

It assumes that cosmic purpose exists.

It assumes that the cosmos is consistent.

It assumes that the cosmos is understandable.

It assumes that conflict and suffering isn’t needed in living.

It assumes that man should act as a steward for the world.

It assumes that the path of life is found in the future instead of the present and past.

It assumes that things-in-themselves exists in actions. ( Indepenent noumenal realities revolves around actions in otherwords.)

It assumes that men must transcend into somthing.

It assumes that men must transcend somewhere.

It assumes that man’s simulative constructed domain born out of anthrocentrism and anthropomorphism is right.

[more_or_less]

@Joker

[…]

It assumes that men must transcend somewhere.

I assume both you and this thread are going “nowhere.”

[Joker]

@more or less

@Joker

[…]

It assumes that men must transcend somewhere.

I assume both you and this thread are going “nowhere.”

Be patient. I am still editing the first post.

[more_or_less]

@Joker

@more or less

@Joker

[…]

It assumes that men must transcend somewhere.

I assume both you and this thread are going “nowhere.”

Be patient. I am still editing the first post.

Meaning your thinking and expression is in its fetal stage? Gosh, thanks for the tip. I never would have guessed its not a fully fleshed out and cohesive thought unless you told me.

Tip #1, your post is merely is contradictory straw man based on pretending secular humanism is a religion.

Tip #2, use the “Preview” button, and edit and reflect on your words before you post them. PLEASE.

[Joker]

Meaning your thinking and expression is in its fetal stage? Gosh, thanks for the tip. I never would have guessed its not a fully fleshed out and cohesive thought unless you told me.

Your sarcasm is noted jackass.

Tip #1, your post is merely is contradictory straw man based on pretending secular humanism is a religion.

That coming from you is inconsequential considering that you call everything a straw man and you hardly ever back up your insults on people’s threads.

Tip #2, use the “Preview” button, and edit and reflect on your words before you post them. PLEASE.

I’ll do what I dam well please.

[more_or_less]

@Joker

Meaning your thinking and expression is in its fetal stage? Gosh, thanks for the tip. I never would have guessed its not a fully fleshed out and cohesive thought unless you told me.

Your sarcasm is noted jackass.

Your name calling is noted, Joker.

@Joker

Tip #1, your post is merely is contradictory straw man based on pretending secular humanism is a religion.

That coming from you is inconsequential considering that you call everything a straw man and you hardly ever back up your insults on people’s threads.

It’s your post that is insulting. I’ve said nothing about you. Your username says that for me, don’t you think?

@Joker

Tip #2, use the “Preview” button, and edit and reflect on your words before you post them. PLEASE.

I’ll do what I dam well please.

I look forward to when you’ll afford me that freedom.

[Joker]

More examples:

Market Equilibrium- answers.com/Market+Equilibrium?cat=biz-fin

In economics, economic equilibrium is simply a state of the world where economic forces are balanced and in the absence of external influences the (equilibrium) values of economic variables will not change. Market equilibrium, for example, refers to a condition where a market price is established through competition such that the amount of goods or services sought by buyers is equal to the amount of goods or services produced by sellers. This price is often called the equilibrium price or market clearing price and will tend not to change unless demand or supply change.

When the price is above the equilibrium point there is a surplus of supply; where the price is below the equilibrium point there is a shortage in supply. Different supply curves and different demand curves have different points of economic equilibrium. In most simple microeconomic stories of supply and demand in a market a static equilibrium is observed in a market; however, economic equilibrium can exist in non-market relationships and can be dynamic. Equilibrium may also be multi-market or general, as opposed to the partial equilibrium of a single market.

As in most usage (say, that of chemistry), in economics equilibrium means “balance,” here between supply forces and demand forces: for example, an increase in supply will disrupt the equilibrium, leading to lower prices. Eventually, a new equilibrium will be attained in most markets. Then, there will be no change in price or the amount of output bought and sold — until there is an exogenous shift in supply or demand (such as changes in technology or tastes). That is, there are no endogenous forces leading to the price or the quantity.

Not all economic equilibria are stable. For an equilibrium to be stable, a small deviation from equilibrium leads to economic forces that returns an economic sub-system toward the original equilibrium. For example, if a movement out of supply/demand equilibrium leads to an excess supply (glut) that induces price declines which return the market to a situation where the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied. If supply and demand curves intersect more than once, then both stable and unstable equilibria are found.

Most economists (e.g. Samuelson 1947, Chapter 3, p. 52) caution against attaching a normative meaning (value judgement) to the equilibrium price. For example, food markets may be in equilibrium at the same time that people are starving (because they cannot afford to pay the high equilibrium price).

In most interpretations, classical economists such as Adam Smith maintained that the free market would tend towards economic equilibrium through the price mechanism. That is, any excess supply (market surplus or glut) would lead to price cuts, which decrease the quantity supplied (by reducing the incentive to produce and sell the product) and increase the quantity demanded (by offering consumers bargains), automatically abolishing the glut. Similarly, in an unfettered market, any excess demand (or shortage) would lead to price increases, reducing the quantity demanded (as customers are priced out of the market) and increasing in the quantity supplied (as the incentive to produce and sell a product rises). As before, the disequilibrium (here, the shortage) disappears. This automatic abolition of non-market-clearing situations distinguishes markets from central planning schemes, which often have a difficult time getting prices right and suffer from persistent shortages of goods and services.

This view came under attack from at least two viewpoints. Modern mainstream economics points to cases where equilibrium does not correspond to market clearing (but instead to unemployment), as with the efficiency wage hypothesis in labor economics. In some ways parallel is the phenomenon of credit rationing, in which banks hold interest rates low in order to create an excess demand for loans, so that they can pick and choose whom to lend to. Further, economic equilibrium can correspond with monopoly, where the monopolistic firm maintains an artificial shortage in order to prop up prices and to maximize profits. Finally, Keynesian macroeconomics points to underemployment equilibrium, where a surplus of labor (i.e., cyclical unemployment) co-exists for a long time with a shortage of aggregate demand.

On the other hand, the Austrian School and Joseph Schumpeter maintained that in the short term equilibrium is never attained as everyone was always trying to take advantage of the pricing system and so there was always some dynamism in the system. The free market’s strength was not creating a static or a general equilibrium but instead in organising resources to meet individual desires and discovering the best methods to carry the economy forward.

Clinical Psychology-http://www.answers.com/topic/clinical-psychology-2?cat=health

Branch of psychology concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Clinical psychologists evaluate patients through interviews, observation, and psychological tests, and they apply current research findings and methodologies in making diagnoses and assigning treatments. Most clinical psychologists hold an academic degree (Ph.D. or Psy.D.) rather than a medical degree (M.D.); they may provide psychotherapy but cannot prescribe medications. Most practictioners work in hospitals or clinics or in private practice, often in tandem with psychiatrists and social workers, treating mentally or physically disabled patients, prison inmates, drug and alcohol abusers, and geriatric patients, among others. See also psychiatry; social work.

[more_or_less]

@Joker

More examples:

Market Equilibrium- answers.com/Market+Equilibrium?cat=biz-fin

In economics, economic equilibrium is simply a state of the world where economic forces are balanced and in the absence of external influences the (equilibrium) values of economic variables will not change. Market equilibrium, for example, refers to a condition where a market price is established through competition such that the amount of goods or services sought by buyers is equal to the amount of goods or services produced by sellers. This price is often called the equilibrium price or market clearing price and will tend not to change unless demand or supply change.

When the price is above the equilibrium point there is a surplus of supply; where the price is below the equilibrium point there is a shortage in supply. Different supply curves and different demand curves have different points of economic equilibrium. In most simple microeconomic stories of supply and demand in a market a static equilibrium is observed in a market; however, economic equilibrium can exist in non-market relationships and can be dynamic. Equilibrium may also be multi-market or general, as opposed to the partial equilibrium of a single market.

As in most usage (say, that of chemistry), in economics equilibrium means “balance,” here between supply forces and demand forces: for example, an increase in supply will disrupt the equilibrium, leading to lower prices. Eventually, a new equilibrium will be attained in most markets. Then, there will be no change in price or the amount of output bought and sold — until there is an exogenous shift in supply or demand (such as changes in technology or tastes). That is, there are no endogenous forces leading to the price or the quantity.

Not all economic equilibria are stable. For an equilibrium to be stable, a small deviation from equilibrium leads to economic forces that returns an economic sub-system toward the original equilibrium. For example, if a movement out of supply/demand equilibrium leads to an excess supply (glut) that induces price declines which return the market to a situation where the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied. If supply and demand curves intersect more than once, then both stable and unstable equilibria are found.

Most economists (e.g. Samuelson 1947, Chapter 3, p. 52) caution against attaching a normative meaning (value judgement) to the equilibrium price. For example, food markets may be in equilibrium at the same time that people are starving (because they cannot afford to pay the high equilibrium price).

In most interpretations, classical economists such as Adam Smith maintained that the free market would tend towards economic equilibrium through the price mechanism. That is, any excess supply (market surplus or glut) would lead to price cuts, which decrease the quantity supplied (by reducing the incentive to produce and sell the product) and increase the quantity demanded (by offering consumers bargains), automatically abolishing the glut. Similarly, in an unfettered market, any excess demand (or shortage) would lead to price increases, reducing the quantity demanded (as customers are priced out of the market) and increasing in the quantity supplied (as the incentive to produce and sell a product rises). As before, the disequilibrium (here, the shortage) disappears. This automatic abolition of non-market-clearing situations distinguishes markets from central planning schemes, which often have a difficult time getting prices right and suffer from persistent shortages of goods and services.

This view came under attack from at least two viewpoints. Modern mainstream economics points to cases where equilibrium does not correspond to market clearing (but instead to unemployment), as with the efficiency wage hypothesis in labor economics. In some ways parallel is the phenomenon of credit rationing, in which banks hold interest rates low in order to create an excess demand for loans, so that they can pick and choose whom to lend to. Further, economic equilibrium can correspond with monopoly, where the monopolistic firm maintains an artificial shortage in order to prop up prices and to maximize profits. Finally, Keynesian macroeconomics points to underemployment equilibrium, where a surplus of labor (i.e., cyclical unemployment) co-exists for a long time with a shortage of aggregate demand.

On the other hand, the Austrian School and Joseph Schumpeter maintained that in the short term equilibrium is never attained as everyone was always trying to take advantage of the pricing system and so there was always some dynamism in the system. The free market’s strength was not creating a static or a general equilibrium but instead in organising resources to meet individual desires and discovering the best methods to carry the economy forward.

!?

[Joker]

Examples:

Humanism- http://www.answers.com/Humanism

The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick.

Moral pragmatism.

Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans:

Collective anthrocentrism.

Origins of humanism-

Humanism was an intellectual and cultural movement based on the recovery, interpretation, and imitation of Greek and Roman antiquity. It began in the fourteenth century and continued to flourish until the seventeenth, making an impact not only on scholarship but also on literature, art, and science. A variety of different attitudes towards the body can be found in the writings of humanists. What all these views have in common, however, is that they derive from the study of the classical past.

Many humanists were teachers, and in their pedagogical theory and practice they devoted attention to physical development as well as to intellectual formation. The Education of Boys (1450), for example, by Enea Silvio Piccolomini (1405-64), later to become Pope Pius II, is divided into two parts: the first concerned with the body, the second with the mind. Piccolomini stressed the necessity of developing a sturdy physique by avoiding feather beds, silk clothing, and other luxurious items which encouraged softness and effeminacy. Youths were advised to obey Plato’s dictum, as recounted by St Basil, that the body should be indulged with food and drink only to the extent that it was of service to philosophy. Relying on the Roman rhetorician Quintilian and the Greek moralist Plutarch (to whom an influential pedagogical treatise was falsely attributed), Piccolomini counselled against corporal punishment, ‘since boys must be led to virtue by rational arguments, and admonitions, not by wounds and blows’.He was nevertheless a keen advocate of energetic physical training and martial exercises, as practised by the ancient Spartans and described by the Roman military theorist Vegetius, since these helped to develop a strong and vigorous body, which his noble and princely students would need for future exploits in battle.

Another ancient source from which humanists took ideas about the body was Greek philosophy. Marsilio Ficino (1433-99) translated all of Plato’s dialogues into Latin, thus making generally available the Platonic belief that the body occupied the lowest level of reality, that it was the prison of the soul, and that the truly wise man would attempt to escape its material confines through contemplation of immaterial ideas, such as Truth and Beauty. From Epicurus, on the other hand, humanists such as Thomas More (1478-1535) learned to appreciate the value of corporeal pleasures. In his Utopia (1516) More imagined an ideal society, whose entirely rational inhabitants had a high regard for the stable and calm pleasures which derive from health, beauty, and strength, and even took unashamed delight in those which come by way of the senses.

A popular humanist genre was the praise of mankind, which usually included sections on both the body and the soul. The first book, for instance, of On Man’s Dignity and Excellence (1452), by Giannozzo Manetti (1396-1459), is a hymn to the beauty, utility, and divine craftsmanship of the human body. allows Quoting long passages of Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods and Lactantius’s On the Handiwork of God, Manetti lovingly describes each organ and limb, noting how man’s erect posture, unique among all living beings, him to observe and contemplate the heavens; and how the placement of his eyes, ears and nose ‘in the citadel of the head’ is marvellously adapted to sense perception, while nevertheless keeping these delicate organs far away from the bodily equivalent of drains, which, as in the best-designed houses, are relegated to the rear.

Spirituality of man himself.

Literary Dictionary: humanism
humanism, a 19th‐century term for the values and ideals of the European Renaissance, which placed a new emphasis on the expansion of human capacities. Reviving the study of Greek and Roman history, philosophy, and arts, the Renaissance humanists developed an image of ‘Man’ more positive and hopeful than that of medieval ascetic Christianity: rather than being a miserable sinner awaiting redemption from a pit of fleshly corruption, ‘Man’ was a source of infinite possibilities, ideally developing towards a balance of physical, spiritual, moral, and intellectual faculties. Most early humanists like Erasmus and Milton in the 16th and 17th centuries combined elements of Christian and classical cultures in what has become known as Christian humanism,

As the name implies, a central aim of such ‘humanists’ was to promote a more human-based approach to learning, including a cultivation of eloquence for practical purposes and a study of disciplines such as history and moral philosophy. But this did not entail an abandonment of Christian belief: indeed, most humanists—especially in northern Europe—were deeply concerned to demonstrate the compatibility of ancient culture with Christian faith and values.

Most generally, any philosophy concerned to emphasize human welfare and dignity, and either optimistic about the powers of human reason, or at least insistent that we have no alternative but to use it as best we can.

[more_or_less]

@Joker

Examples:

Humanism- http://www.answers.com/Humanism

The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick.

Moral pragmatism.

My guess is you are just stating that as you have apparently, no values and no dignity.

slow day on myspace, is it?

Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans:

Collective anthrocentrism.

Ah, so the intellectual breakthrough is that “humans” are “species-ists”? Or is it in discovering an “ism,” actually has meaning?

[Joker]

Transhumanism-http://www.answers.com/Transhumanism?cat=technology

Transhumanism (sometimes symbolized by >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death. Transhumanist thinkers study the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Possible dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that might radically change the conditions of human life are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.[1]

Although the first known use of the term “transhumanism” dates from 1957, the contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s, when a group of scientists, artists, and futurists based in the United States began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist thinkers postulate that human beings will eventually be transformed into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label “posthuman.”

Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. […] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies […].

The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic and prominent transhumanist. The term “transhumanism” is often used as a synonym for “human enhancement.”[20]

While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a post-evolutionary phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change.

To this end, transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on future studies and various fields of ethics such as bioethics, infoethics, nanoethics, neuroethics, roboethics, and technoethics mainly but not exclusively from a secular humanist, socially progressive and politically liberal perspective. Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically “natural” as problematically nebulous at best, and an obstacle to progress at worst.[26]

Transhumanism in a nut shell:

Abolitionism, an ethical philosophy based upon a perceived obligation to use technology to eliminate involuntary suffering in all sentient life.[40]
Democratic transhumanism, a political philosophy synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, radical democracy and transhumanism.[41]
Extropianism, an early school of transhumanism characterized by a set of principles advocating a proactive approach to human evolution.[15]
Immortalism, a moral philosophy based upon the belief that technological immortality is possible and desirable, and advocating research and development to ensure its realization.[42]
Libertarian transhumanism, a political philosophy synthesizing libertarianism and transhumanism.[27]
Postgenderism, a social philosophy which seeks the elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies.[43]
Singularitarianism, a moral philosophy based upon the belief that a technological singularity is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.[31]
Technogaianism, an ecological philosophy based upon the belief that emerging technologies can help restore Earth’s environment, and that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should therefore be an important goal of environmentalists.[41]

[more_or_less]

Why did you use the term “scientifical”? What does this mean, oh gazing nihilist of despair?

[Joker]

Scientism- answers.com/topic/scientism?cat=technology

[u][b]The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of a perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions:

The term is often used as a pejorative[1][2] to indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[3] In this sense, the charge of scientism often is used as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply,[4] such as when the topic is understood to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
The term is also used to pejoratively refer to “the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,”[2] with a concomitant “elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience”.[5][6] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[7][8] (Compare: scientific imperialism.[9]) [/b][/u]

Futurism- answers.com/Futurism?cat=entertainment

A belief that the meaning of life and one’s personal fulfillment lie in the future and not in the present or past.

Early 20th-century art movement, centred in Italy, that celebrated the dynamism, speed, and power of the machine and the vitality and restlessness of modern life. The term was coined by Filippo Marinetti, who in 1909 published a manifesto glorifying the new technology of the automobile and the beauty of its speed and power. In 1910 Umberto Boccioni and others published a manifesto on painting. They adopted the Cubist technique of depicting several views of an object simultaneously with fragmented planes and outlines and used rhythmic spatial repetitions of the object’s outlines in transit to render movement. Their preferred subjects were speeding cars and trains, racing cyclists, and urban crowds; their palette was more vibrant than the Cubists’. With Boccioni, the most prominent Futurist artists were his teacher, Giacomo Balla (1871 – 1958), and Gino Severini (1883 – 1966). Boccioni’s death in 1916 and World War I brought an end to the movement, which had a strong influence in postrevolutionary Russia and on Dada.

Another interpretation of Futurism.

answers.com/topic/futurism-c … schatology

[u][b]Futurism is an interpretation of the Bible in Christian eschatology placing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel generally in the future as literal, physical, apocalyptic and global. Other views place the fulfillment of such prophecies in the past as literal, physical and local (Preterism; Historicism), or in the present as non-literal and spiritual (Idealism).

Futurism has both ancient and modern variants, the most common among modern Protestant evangelicals probably being Dispensationalist[citation needed].

Most Christians believe that Jesus will return again to fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy, see Nicene Creed.[/b][/u]

[more_or_less]

Ah, so its a made-up, pejorative term. Nice way to start a thread, using loaded language on top of the lucidity of the content that follows.

[more_or_less]

I see you’ve now edited the thread title. Classy.

from the first post:
Last edited by Joker on Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:30 pm, edited 12 times in total.

I am starting to wish you are Imp’s alternick, and he’ll let me in on the ‘joke.’

[Joker]

Scientific Materialism-http://www.answers.com/Scientific+Materialism?cat=technology

Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism,

pragmatism
An interpretation of the meaning and the justification of beliefs in terms of their practical effects or contents. The method of reasoning is by induction.

Problem of induction- David Hume- answers.com/topic/problem-of … technology

Problem of justifying the inductive inference from the observed to the unobserved. It was given its classic formulation by David Hume, who noted that such inferences typically rely on the assumption that the future will resemble the past, or on the assumption that events of a certain type are necessarily connected, via a relation of causation, to events of another type. (1) If we were asked why we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, we would say that in the past the Earth turned on its axis every 24 hours (more or less), and that there is a uniformity in nature that guarantees that such events always happen in the same way. But how do we know that nature is uniform in this sense? We might answer that, in the past, nature has always exhibited this kind of uniformity, and so it will continue to be uniform in the future. But this inference is justified only if we assume that the future must resemble the past. How do we justify this assumption? We might say that in the past, the future turned out to resemble the past, and so in the future, the future will again turn out to resemble the past. The inference is obviously circular: it succeeds only by tacitly assuming what it sets out to prove, namely that the future will resemble the past. (2) If we are asked why we believe we will feel heat when we approach a fire, we would say that fire causes heat — i.e., there is a “necessary connection” between fire and heat, such that whenever one occurs, the other must follow. But, Hume asks, what is this “necessary connection”? Do we observe it when we see the fire or feel the heat? If not, what evidence do we have that it exists? All we have is our observation, in the past, of a “constant conjunction” of instances of fire being followed by instances of heat. This observation does not show that, in the future, instances of fire will continue to be followed by instances of heat; to say that it does is to assume that the future must resemble the past. But if our observation is consistent with the possibility that fire may not be followed by heat in the future, then it cannot show that there is a necessary connection between the two that makes heat follow fire whenever fire occurs. Thus we are not justified in believing that (1) the sun will rise tomorrow or that (2) we will feel heat when we approach a fire. It is important to note that Hume did not deny that he or anyone else formed beliefs about the future on the basis of induction; he denied only that we could know with certainty that these beliefs are true. Philosophers have responded to the problem of induction in a variety of ways, though none has gained wide acceptance.

insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods

Standardization.

[Joker]

@more or less

Ah, so its a made-up, pejorative term. Nice way to start a thread, using loaded language on top of the lucidity of the content that follows.

What are you babbling on about now?

I see you’ve now edited the thread title. Classy.

from the first post:
Last edited by Joker on Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:30 pm, edited 12 times in total.

I am starting to wish you are Imp’s alternick, and he’ll let me in on the 'joke.

Was this a sad pathetic attempt at a joke?

My guess is you are just stating that as you have apparently, no values and no dignity.

slow day on myspace, is it?

Actually I was elaborating how humanists of all varieties posit a moral existence in the cosmos where in all actuality in comparison there is none.

I would call that a religious posture.

Also it might of been a slow day for me considering that I was with your mom all afternoon.

Ah, so the intellectual breakthrough is that “humans” are “species-ists”? Or is it in discovering an “ism,” actually has meaning?

If you are referring to how modern philosophy, science and thought constantly plays on the fallacy of anthrocentrism or anthropomorphism, then yes that is exactly what I am saying.

!?

Why don’t you read what I have posted? ( I would suggest that you do more reading and less flapping of the jaw in order to understand what this thread is all about.)

Your name calling is noted, Joker.

Terrific.

It’s your post that is insulting. I’ve said nothing about you. Your username says that for me, don’t you think?

Keep deviating from the subject of the thread. See if I care.

If you can’t address what I have posted I don’t think you have any business in this thread.

I look forward to when you’ll afford me that freedom.

Do you think you are entitled to somthing? How naive.

[Mr_Reasonable]

What isn’t idealistic?

[Joker]

@Smears

What isn’t idealistic?

Simply living and surviving isn’t idealistic. I don’t think it is impossible to live without ideals.

If you are referring to how knowledge is thoroughly idealistic I would agree. It is quite a obstacle to understanding the cosmos which is non- idealistic with our impeding idealism throughout all our sciences and philosophies.

My goal of this thread is to show how alot of insights and ideals of modern scientific movements are just as religious as the traditional objective religions that man once widely associated himself with.

[more_or_less]

@Joker

@Smears

What isn’t idealistic?

Simply living and surviving isn’t idealistic. I don’t think it is impossible to live without ideals.

So, idealistically, we should just live simply and survive.

@Joker

If you are referring to how knowledge is thoroughly idealistic I would agree. It is quite a obstacle to understanding the cosmos which is non- idealistic with our impeding idealism throughout all our sciences and philosophies.

Ah, so we can understand the cosmos, which you have innate knowledge of, without any knowledge or ideas. Great! Makes a whole lot of sense.

@Joker

My goal of this thread is to show how alot of insights and ideals of modern scientific movements are just as religious as the traditional objective religions that man once widely associated himself with.

You’ve failed. You have shown how what kind of “thinker” you are… on that you’ve succeeded brilliantly.