Thread: An Empirical View of Science Dogma

Another verbose failure to understand my argument. You can go on for paragraph after paragraph to address what you think I'm saying and ramble on a response to that, but you haven't even acknowledged the existence of inherent cultural ethos' accumulation in the modern worldview. You haven't even mentioned a hint that you actually understand what I'm driving at. You don't even seem interested in what I'm driving at. You seem interested in winning a debate. Is it really so impossible to have an honest discussion with you? Pay attention, please, this part's important:

For example, look at Western Medicine, all other versions of medicine are considered mediocre superstition, western medicine is the only type considered modern and appropriate because it's based on the scientific method, but it carries with it the accumulation of western ethos' rampant compartmentalization, the same that causes someone participating in an online discussion to think it accurate, respectful or somehow helpful to tear a post apart and respond to each sentence out of context. The gestalt is ignored, hence why its competitor in western society is labeled holistic medicine (which is considered unscientific no matter how many studies pop up on its virtues).

An Immunologist would be worried about you.

I want you to read your response and take into account where it's coming from. Can you begin to recognize the cognitive dissonance it bleeds? The way you've just acted condescending and matter-of-factly in the face of something that contradicts your worldview as if your beliefs are evidently proven and anything contrary is simply worrying? The way you can't even conceive of reality outside of this mode of thinking? You have defined dogmatism.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Another verbose failure to understand my argument. You can go on for paragraph after paragraph to address what you think I'm saying and ramble on a response to that, but you haven't even acknowledged the existence of inherent cultural ethos' accumulation in the modern worldview.

I’ve already acknowledged these terminologies of yours, and have been making responses to them. Though I guess my questions for you to expound more on these matters seems non-existent for you.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You haven't even mentioned a hint that you actually understand what I'm driving at. You don't even seem interested in what I'm driving at.

Probably because actually stating that I understand you would allow you to set up a post that I really don’t. Why would I need to participate in straw man questions?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You seem interested in winning a debate

And I’m not here to win at all, merely to argue and discuss. Instead of stating things that make you feel good (e.g. Sheldrake’s declarations), argue why they’re good declarations on his end. If your flagrant series of reductio ad absurdum isn’t making it seem that you’re aiming to win/close a debate, then I guess I can’t help bring awareness for you there. You can win the Internet any day if you want to, though.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Is it really so impossible to have an honest discussion with you? Pay attention, please, this part's important:

Me answering your self-referential question? Now you want me to do your thinking for you? No thanks.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The way you've just acted condescending and matter-of-factly in the face of something that contradicts your worldview as if your beliefs are evidently proven and anything contrary is simply worrying?

You’re a hypocrite if what you’ve been spewing about Sheldrake isn’t considered (to you) a matter-of-factly tonality, and condescending as well. You’re twisting things up here. You (in previous posts) were mentioning Richard Dawkins (e.g. someone you feel is a militant dogmatist atheist), and how he apparently makes ontological claims with absolute certainty to the point where he demands others to provide evidence to anyone that aims to challenging his claims. Pretty sure he would claim he would be almost certain on his view of reality (sustained by atheism no doubt) instead of being “absolutely” certain, especially in his book, “The God Delusion.”

It should be apparent that someone wanting to disprove of a God, or another deity, is doomed to fail, and vice versa for anyone that aims to find absolute certainties that there is a God/deity. Keywords: almost vs. absolute

I’m not equivalent to ol’ Richie boy, please don’t do that.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I want you to read your response and take into account where it's coming from. Can you begin to recognize the cognitive dissonance it bleeds?

It was a flagrant straw man on your end, ad hominem pending. If attributing cognitive dissonance just because an individual didn’t bother to type that they read your post is a habit for you, it’s no wonder you’re reaching a breaking point. I would state instead that you’re wanting me to analyze the cognitive dissonance on your end for making analogous statements (e.g. Western medicine and a straw man) that clearly is addressing the person you're attacking rather than the topics at hand, but there’s no need for me to do that since it wouldn’t register to you, and it would be futile.

Which is why I’ll state again: An immunologist would be worried about you for doing something like that (e.g. horrible analogous statements). Actually, anyone that knows what a non-sequitur is would.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You don't even seem interested in what I'm driving at.

But I have been interested, I even gave you cliff notes with bullet points on how the apparent Materialistic paradigm may affect the philosophy of science, the method of inquiry, politics behind Science (e.g. how funding is distributed towards certain theorems and experiments), and such. I even made arguments as to why some of your claims still cater to a hypothetical audience. I would be concerned on the impasse (e.g. brick wall analogy others have been directing to you), and lack of interest you've portrayed to others who seem to respond to you (e.g. those you selectively feel are using ad hominem and attacks on you, which is pretty much everyone).

It’s your impetuous spirit that does it to me, it’s part of what makes this discussion very interesting to me. If I truly had apathy for what you’ve contributed, I wouldn’t have bothered to respond to you, but here I am. And if this is a common behavioral trend of yours, rest assured that I’ll do my best to invest in some time to respond if needed.