Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[DarthChimay]

Actually, one of the first things science states is that it will never know everything.

Who is this "science" and where do they state these things? I'd like to write them a strongly worded letter.

Okay, scienTISTS. Scientists state that our science will never know everything.     Life would get pretty boring if it ever did.

Is that really a problem? Isn't it alright to not know something? (I'm not so much directing these questions at you as posing them rhetorically; from what you're writing, it seems like you're okay with not knowing everything)

Also, there are definitely things that science can't answer because they aren't valid questions. Science can't tell me how a unicorn can circle my head using only the power of its rainbow farts to propel it. Why? Because there isn't a rainbow-farting unicorn circling my head (he farts teal, thank you very much). Science can't answer nonsensical questions. So, it seems to me that we should first determine, when asking a question, if it is a valid question.

[Tyrant]

Well, we're taught from the cradle to the grave that all questions are valid regardless. Each question, regardless of what it is, has the potential to drop a nugget of information you didn't have prior into your brain.  I'm not sure we could categorize such a thing. We'd have 8+ billion (or whatever the world populace is now) different opinions on the matter. Clearly, there are questions science isn't made to answer, just as there are questions theology isn't made to answer.

[DarthChimay]

But some questions aren't valid, by which I mean, some questions are asked without the possiblity of an answer. Again with the farting unicorns. Sure, I can ask that question, but it is a nonsense question. And having opinions is different than answering a question. Having an opinion is just saying something. It doesn't mean there's any ground on which to base that opinion. Some opinions are just bad opinions.

I do feel like we're dancing around some specifics here. What exact questions are you referring to that science isn't "made to answer?" Not that I necessarily disagree; I just like specifics.

[Tyrant]

But some questions aren't valid, by which I mean, some questions are asked without the possiblity of an answer. Again with the farting unicorns. Sure, I can ask that question, but it is a nonsense question. And having opinions is different than answering a question. Having an opinion is just saying something. It doesn't mean there's any ground on which to base that opinion. Some opinions are just bad opinions.

I do feel like we're dancing around some specifics here. What exact questions are you referring to that science isn't "made to answer?" Not that I necessarily disagree; I just like specifics.

Well, there's the 'How' and 'Why' questions I've thrown out there (repeatedly. Sorry if I'm getting annoying for continually mentioning it). How would be along the lines of finding out what makes plants grow, or the sun shine, or how ice cream is made, etc.. Even how we came about as a species. Why intones more of an underlying  purpose, such as if we've got a purpose to begin with, what life is about, why Carrot Top hasn't been murdered yet, etc..

I understand that some people would hold that there is no 'Why', only 'How', and if they can live with that, that's their choice. I and I would imagine everyone else is struck sometimes, however, by the complete absurdity of life and the occasional intense moments of meta-cognition that make us look at our hands or our faces in the mirror and realize with complete clarity that we're alive for some reason (normally a sensation we take for granted). It's these things that have caused us to ask 'Why'.

  As a sidenote, your question about the unicorns is only a nonsense question depending on the environment you're in. I would imagine if you asked that very same question in a mental ward, someone would very well have an answer for you and not think it strange at all. 

[DarthChimay]

Well, there's the 'How' and 'Why' questions I've thrown out there (repeatedly. Sorry if I'm getting annoying for continually mentioning it). How would be along the lines of finding out what makes plants grow, or the sun shine, or how ice cream is made, etc.. Even how we came about as a species. Why intones more of an underlying  purpose, such as if we've got a purpose to begin with, what life is about, why Carrot Top hasn't been murdered yet, etc..

I understand that some people would hold that there is no 'Why', only 'How', and if they can live with that, that's their choice. I and I would imagine everyone else is struck sometimes, however, by the complete absurdity of life and the occasional intense moments of meta-cognition that make us look at our hands or our faces in the mirror and realize with complete clarity that we're alive for some reason (normally a sensation we take for granted). It's these things that have caused us to ask 'Why'.

  As a sidenote, your question about the unicorns is only a nonsense question depending on the environment you're in. I would imagine if you asked that very same question in a mental ward, someone would very well have an answer for you and not think it strange at all. 

Sorry I missed any previous specifics. I didn't mean to annoy by asking.

I can tell you why Carrot Top hasn't been murdered. Have you seen those guns he's sporting?



Okay, seriously, those are questions that might be worth asking. I don't really think about them because the only answer I have is, "Because." Which is fine with me.

I think the sidenote is interesting, though. Sure, a crazy person might give some sort of answer to my unicorn question, but that would just be answering gibberish with gibberish. Being able to give an nonsensical answer to a nonsensical question doesn't make the question valid, no matter who you ask.

[bettertomorrowamy]

...even Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?

[Tyrant]

 

Okay, seriously, those are questions that might be worth asking. I don't really think about them because the only answer I have is, "Because." Which is fine with me.

I think the sidenote is interesting, though. Sure, a crazy person might give some sort of answer to my unicorn question, but that would just be answering gibberish with gibberish. Being able to give an nonsensical answer to a nonsensical question doesn't make the question valid, no matter who you ask.

Holy geez. He'd be hot, only....that face.....He looks like an orangutan. 

  If 'because' works for you as an answer to 'why this, why that', that's cool. But some of us want more than 'because'. This is why theology exists. Some of us have nothing better to do than sit around and think deep thoughts (not saying you're not deep, but well...you know what I mean). Science (ie: Scientists, Torgo.  ) is/are kind of the same way. Scientists aren't content to stopping at the atom and its components. They want to find out about the components of the components of the components and so on.

  I agree about the nonsensical answer/question for the most part. However, it can also be a subjective point of view. A crazy person thinks he/she isn't crazy usually. So to the person who's asking the unicorn question and to the person answering it, it's a completely logical exchange. Sure, to us it sounds like gibberish, but to them it's as normal as our casual exchanges about the weather. Who says which is sane, which is insane? Do either concept really exist anyway? Sure we put crazy people into hospitals, but our definition of 'crazy' basically equates to folks who don't follow the same kind of mental patterns we do. Psychology is usually regarded as kind of a pseudoscience on top of the fact that we don't know 100% about the human brain. In order to define what an irrelevant question is, we'd have to first define objectivity and subjectivity and then expect everyone on the planet to abide by the exact same definition.

Uhg, now my head hurts. Man, I hope I made sense there.

[bettertomorrowamy]

His baby Carrot Bottom?

[Tyrant]

Note to Carrot Top:

Pull up your fucking pants, I can see your pubic hair.

Gah. thanks for noticing that, Imrahil. No really, thanks.  Now I'm forced to wonder if it's the same color as his hair.

Man, this thread has taken a really ugly turn.

[Tripe]

Holy geez. He'd be hot, only....that face.....He looks like an orangutan. 

Apparently he shags like one too

[Tripe]

and a few eeks too.

then he goes to sleep with a banana leaf covering his head

[DarthChimay]

 

Spoiler

Okay, seriously, those are questions that might be worth asking. I don't really think about them because the only answer I have is, "Because." Which is fine with me.

I think the sidenote is interesting, though. Sure, a crazy person might give some sort of answer to my unicorn question, but that would just be answering gibberish with gibberish. Being able to give an nonsensical answer to a nonsensical question doesn't make the question valid, no matter who you ask.

Holy geez. He'd be hot, only....that face.....He looks like an orangutan. 

  If 'because' works for you as an answer to 'why this, why that', that's cool. But some of us want more than 'because'. This is why theology exists. Some of us have nothing better to do than sit around and think deep thoughts (not saying you're not deep, but well...you know what I mean). Science (ie: Scientists, Torgo.  ) is/are kind of the same way. Scientists aren't content to stopping at the atom and its components. They want to find out about the components of the components of the components and so on.

Yeah, but digging deeper into the structure of the atom is a how question. I was thinking of the more existentialist questions, such as "Why am I here?" And I might've been flippant with my 'because' mostly because I'm so sleepy. When I think about those sorts of questions, I answer it more as, "Well, I'm one of the lucky ones. I get to die. Most people are never born. So, how should I be?" And of course I always wrestle with deep questions in my line of work, such as "What am I trying to say with this game? What can a person learn from it? How to be better? Learn to think from a world view that's totally different from their everyday life?" Things like that. Perhaps that's a rather pragmatic way to look at such metaphysical questions, but what's the point of asking such questions if you're not going to try and change your behavior from them?

  I agree about the nonsensical answer/question for the most part. However, it can also be a subjective point of view. A crazy person thinks he/she isn't crazy usually. So to the person who's asking the unicorn question and to the person answering it, it's a completely logical exchange. Sure, to us it sounds like gibberish, but to them it's as normal as our casual exchanges about the weather. Who says which is sane, which is insane? Do either concept really exist anyway? Sure we put crazy people into hospitals, but our definition of 'crazy' basically equates to folks who don't follow the same kind of mental patterns we do. Psychology is usually regarded as kind of a pseudoscience on top of the fact that we don't know 100% about the human brain. In order to define what an irrelevant question is, we'd have to first define objectivity and subjectivity and then expect everyone on the planet to abide by the exact same definition.

Uhg, now my head hurts. Man, I hope I made sense there.

There are definite physiological markers of insanity, and the science of neurology is learning more each day. I've listened to people who claim psychology to be a pseudoscience and they generally ignore that side of it. There are fuzzy areas (including, interestingly, migraines, which have no phsyiological basis known at this time). As far as objectivity and subjectivity go, there are definitions. "The water is wet." Wetness is a factual, quantifiable property of the water, making it an objective statement. "The water is cold." That's a subjective statement (unless, of course, we say, "The water is 34 degrees"). So, that's pretty straightforward. The kink comes in because objective does not necessarily mean correct.

I'll stop there because people keep passing by my desk wondering why I would have any pics of Carrot Top visible.

[Tyrant]

  If 'because' works for you as an answer to 'why this, why that', that's cool. But some of us want more than 'because'. This is why theology exists. Some of us have nothing better to do than sit around and think deep thoughts (not saying you're not deep, but well...you know what I mean). Science (ie: Scientists, Torgo.  ) is/are kind of the same way. Scientists aren't content to stopping at the atom and its components. They want to find out about the components of the components of the components and so on.

Yeah, but digging deeper into the structure of the atom is a how question. I was thinking of the more existentialist questions, such as "Why am I here?" And I might've been flippant with my 'because' mostly because I'm so sleepy. When I think about those sorts of questions, I answer it more as, "Well, I'm one of the lucky ones. I get to die. Most people are never born. So, how should I be?" And of course I always wrestle with deep questions in my line of work, such as "What am I trying to say with this game? What can a person learn from it? How to be better? Learn to think from a world view that's totally different from their everyday life?" Things like that. Perhaps that's a rather pragmatic way to look at such metaphysical questions, but what's the point of asking such questions if you're not going to try and change your behavior from them?

  Well, I meant more that scientists have their equivalent of deep thinking within the realm of science and 'How' questions as those asking 'Why' questions in the realms of theology. In other words, I'm trying to say that both sets of questions can get very intense and profound with equal measure, just involving different subjects for different answers.

  I agree about the nonsensical answer/question for the most part. However, it can also be a subjective point of view. A crazy person thinks he/she isn't crazy usually. So to the person who's asking the unicorn question and to the person answering it, it's a completely logical exchange. Sure, to us it sounds like gibberish, but to them it's as normal as our casual exchanges about the weather. Who says which is sane, which is insane? Do either concept really exist anyway? Sure we put crazy people into hospitals, but our definition of 'crazy' basically equates to folks who don't follow the same kind of mental patterns we do. Psychology is usually regarded as kind of a pseudoscience on top of the fact that we don't know 100% about the human brain. In order to define what an irrelevant question is, we'd have to first define objectivity and subjectivity and then expect everyone on the planet to abide by the exact same definition.

Uhg, now my head hurts. Man, I hope I made sense there.

There are definite physiological markers of insanity, and the science of neurology is learning more each day. I've listened to people who claim psychology to be a pseudoscience and they generally ignore that side of it. There are fuzzy areas (including, interestingly, migraines, which have no phsyiological basis known at this time). As far as objectivity and subjectivity go, there are definitions. "The water is wet." Wetness is a factual, quantifiable property of the water, making it an objective statement. "The water is cold." That's a subjective statement (unless, of course, we say, "The water is 34 degrees"). So, that's pretty straightforward. The kink comes in because objective does not necessarily mean correct.

While I won't argue that objectivity and subjectivity has been defined as opposing terms, my point was more that we don't know enough in general to be able to cement the definitions that every person on Earth can follow. It's not like a math problem where 100% of the population can agree that 1+1=2 with absolutely no argument that it's correct. Some objectivity between us all exists in that we can all agree that water is wet, fire is hot, 1+1 does in fact equal 2, etc., but not to the point that you could present a case for an irrelevant question and have every single human being agree that it's irrelevant. Insanity or not, there's going to be at least one person who thinks your unicorn question is completely reasonable.

[DarthChimay]

  Well, I meant more that scientists have their equivalent of deep thinking within the realm of science and 'How' questions as those asking 'Why' questions in the realms of theology. In other words, I'm trying to say that both sets of questions can get very intense and profound with equal measure, just involving different subjects for different answers.

Fair enough. About the only thing I can say is that scientists look for evidence for their questions, but theologians don't. I know that's a broad generalization, but how often do theologians say they need to change the word of their scripture because the data shows the scripture to be incorrect? And I'm not talking about changing just because the culture has changed. I think my real problem is that religion is far more primed to hold on to ideas based on dogma than science is.

While I won't argue that objectivity and subjectivity has been defined as opposing terms, my point was more that we don't know enough in general to be able to cement the definitions that every person on Earth can follow. It's not like a math problem where 100% of the population can agree that 1+1=2 with absolutely no argument that it's correct. Some objectivity between us all exists in that we can all agree that water is wet, fire is hot, 1+1 does in fact equal 2, etc., but not to the point that you could present a case for an irrelevant question and have every single human being agree that it's irrelevant. Insanity or not, there's going to be at least one person who thinks your unicorn question is completely reasonable.

I dunno... 1 + 1 = 10.

I see your point. I think we're kinda talking about two different things here. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you'll do  ). From what I read, you're talking about how each individual person reacts to a question, whereas I'm talking about the question itself, regardless of who asks it to whom. There might be a person who thinks my unicorn question is reasonable, but that doesn't make my question reasonable in and of itself, because unicorns don't exist (and they certainly don't fart).

[Tyrant]

  Well, I meant more that scientists have their equivalent of deep thinking within the realm of science and 'How' questions as those asking 'Why' questions in the realms of theology. In other words, I'm trying to say that both sets of questions can get very intense and profound with equal measure, just involving different subjects for different answers.

Fair enough. About the only thing I can say is that scientists look for evidence for their questions, but theologians don't. I know that's a broad generalization, but how often do theologians say they need to change the word of their scripture because the data shows the scripture to be incorrect? And I'm not talking about changing just because the culture has changed. I think my real problem is that religion is far more primed to hold on to ideas based on dogma than science is.

  I can totally see why someone would be put off by such a thing too. However, the very nature of theology involves ideas that should not be ever changing because that would mean we're worshipping deities that change all the time too. If deities can change, why not the moral codes for them  as well? Why not a coda of charity and love to one of hatred and selfishness (which, I admit, many have gone and changed anyway despite the contrary in religious texts)? With the world as we know it forever changing, those who embrace religion find comfort in something steadfast and eternal, despite/because of changes that may take place with the interpretation.

While I won't argue that objectivity and subjectivity has been defined as opposing terms, my point was more that we don't know enough in general to be able to cement the definitions that every person on Earth can follow. It's not like a math problem where 100% of the population can agree that 1+1=2 with absolutely no argument that it's correct. Some objectivity between us all exists in that we can all agree that water is wet, fire is hot, 1+1 does in fact equal 2, etc., but not to the point that you could present a case for an irrelevant question and have every single human being agree that it's irrelevant. Insanity or not, there's going to be at least one person who thinks your unicorn question is completely reasonable.

I dunno... 1 + 1 = 10.

I see your point. I think we're kinda talking about two different things here. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you'll do  ). From what I read, you're talking about how each individual person reacts to a question, whereas I'm talking about the question itself, regardless of who asks it to whom. There might be a person who thinks my unicorn question is reasonable, but that doesn't make my question reasonable in and of itself, because unicorns don't exist (and they certainly don't fart).

  Pretty much (sorry I'm so long-winded. Interesting conversation does that to me). I'm saying that no matter how general and relevant/irrelevant the question is, there's no way to get every single person to respond to it the same way (unless it's a logic based problem). There's no way everyone is going to agree/decide on which irrelevant questions should be funneled away.