DoctorAlien:
by Paul Price

"Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these ‘philosophical biases’ cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science."

This is quite true!

DoctorAlien:

If only more philosophers of science would openly admit this very fundamental problem facing science as a whole, we might see a world with much greater academic freedom to challenge established paradigms (like evolution). Another important quote:

"Basic philosophical assumptions count as biases because they skew the development of hypotheses, the design of experiments, the evaluation of evidence, and the interpretation of results in specific directions."

adoyi8:
Debating with theists about science is difficult;

sometimes they try to undermine science and pitch against God especially when the topic is about limitation of science.

Other times they say that Science is not synonymous to atheism

and mention some major contributors of science which are/were theists.

Now my question to OP is this; are you pro or anti-science.

budaatum:


We should try and openly admit.

DoctorAlien:


Openly admit what?

DoctorAlien:

If only more philosophers of science would openly admit this very fundamental problem facing science as a whole, we might see a world with much greater academic freedom to challenge established paradigms (like evolution).

budaatum:

.

DoctorAlien:
I disagree.
Of course I'm pro-science. But again it depends on what the definition of "science" is.

DoctorAlien:


But I, CMI, and many others have been doing that since God knows when. Or are you gonna deny that I have been stressing the fact of worldviews and their overwhelming influence in our positions?

You, on the other hand, are the one whose acceptance of this basic truth can come into question.

johnydon22:


I was writing a paper on Transgenderism for someone somtime last year, one of my sources a doctor wrote a journal on how WHO is blacklisting doctors who refuse to accept that human sex is interchangeable or that transgendersm isn't delusion, a deviation from objective biological reality.

Is that science? Censoring ideas due to their political implications?

LordReed:
The good thing is that despite the shortcomings of the practitioners of science, they strive towards stopping their shortcomings from colouring the data. On the other hand the religious have no such mechanism or rather allow for no such mechanism. Everything is coloured with "God dunnit!" therefore it stays the same even when there is either no evidence to back it up or the evidence is contrary.

What you really want is for every data to confirm your god beliefs so you run here to equate your obviously deliberate insistent bias with the as yet unavoidable philosophical bias scientists have no choice but assume. If you can't see the difference it says a lot more about you than it does scientists.

johnydon22:
Science is the greatest form of philosophy known to man today, a wonderful tool fueling the advancement of humanity.

I think that yes, science can in fact be controlled by worldview and even an authority, at least conventional science.

Few hundred years ago, religion was the highlight of humanity's trust, almosy all trusted it and thus it became the greatest tool for control.

Today, science enjoys the same amount of trust and therefore can be used as a great tool for mass control or delusion.

I was writing a paper on Transgenderism for someone somtime last year, one of my sources a doctor wrote a journal on how WHO is blacklisting doctors who refuse to accept that human sex is interchangeable or that transgendersm isn't delusion, a deviation from objective biological reality.

Is that science? Censoring ideas due to their polical implications?

See?

Science is funded and run by people and people are many times can be moved by agendas especially types of science that can have economic or political implications.

There is nobody more in control than the person who runs an enterprise that enjoys mass trust.

Michellekabod2:

How can chosing to become a man be delusional?

we can all see for ourselves that the human sex is interchangeable.

The doctors who are been blacklisted are they including their subjective beliefs into science

budaatum:

But, scientifically, "human sex is interchangeable

and transgendersm isn't delusion",

a scientist would claim, since one can objectively provide many "human sex is interchangeable and transgendersm who isn't delusion" just by popping onto the street.

Who, one might then wonder, is allowing bias to get in the way of "objective reality"?

johnydon22:

What's sex?

johnydon22:
Lol. Very simple: any belief that isn't factually correct is delusion

actually it isn't and to think so is delusion.

Human sex is right down at the chromosonal level. Cutting my dick or implanting a breast doesn't make me female anymore than sticking a tail makes me a dog.

Human sex isn't cosmetic, it is in the DNA, cutting of a dick or wearing a lipstick doesn't change XY or XX if you think it does then there you have it.

Point made

Actually, they were blacklisted because of the polical nature of the concept they refuse to subscribe to which is a perversion of biological reality.

I think this reply has eventually put my post into perspective how delusion can be informed with the word "science said" as much as it can be with "God said"

paraltero:


Question: if in the future, science advances to the point where you can do a sex change right down to the chromosomal level, would you still think transgenderism is a delusion?

LordReed:


Are sex and gender the same thing?

johnydon22:
Gender is the social representation of sex. It accounts for age development and sex.

Boy
Girl
Woman
Man

LordReed:


So could it be that it is those social representations that have become interchangeable?

johnydon22:


Nope, it simply is a representation that accounts for age and sex.

Man: Adult human male
Woman: Adult human female
Boy: Child human male
Girl: child human female.

See?

There are two states of being and 1 stage of being gender accounts for.

States of being: Specie and sex
Stage of being: Age

A state of being is unchanging. A stage is changing.

So to be a man, you must be human, male and adult
Woman: must be human, female and adult.

I hope this helps clear things up.

johnydon22:
Actually it isn't. Not even 1 bit.

Let me be sure we understand what we are talking about here;

What's sex?
What makes someone male or female.

budaatum:

We covered quite a lot on what we referred to at the time as objective and subjective morality. Some might not have seen the connection but its there humpty dumpty like. Heres actual human beings telling you they are changing gender and the bits that go with it, but to you they are delusional, even though they passed the 'are you delusional test' before their bits were cut off.

Personally speaking, I think dem chop belle full and it will come back to bite them, both the deluded persons accessing and the parents and the poor brain-dead child. Let them be in naija and claim they are not the gender their mama and papa gave them and let us see. Its nothing new though. The anthropologist sees the similarity in eunuchs.

Anyway, here's wiki on transgender et al.

johnydon22:

Human sex isn't cosmetic, it is in the DNA, cutting of a dick or wearing a lipstick doesn't change XY or XX if you think it does then there you have it.

LordReed:


You said these are social constructs so we are the ones defining these things. If we change them to

Man: Adult human male or female
Woman: Adult human female or male
Boy: Child human male or female
Girl: child human female or male

just like

Cook: Adult human male or female
Driver: Adult human male or female
Pupil: Child human male or female

which are roles defined not by the sex but by the social function. What will be wrong with that?

johnydon22:


Next, someone's assigned specie?

Lol. This even makes the point more.

budaatum:

They are categorically affirming that DNA XY or XX do not define who they are.

They are the Ubermensch who will chose the dick the lipstick thr gender or sex they want!

budaatum:

It seriously does They can assign themselves dog. Pig is already taken. Or futuristically speaking, Venusians, or Martians. They will be assignable specie one day.

johnydon22:


We have a word to refer to an adult/child human male/female, and thats Human.

I'm sure i have shown how gender is rooted in sex.

Neither of these things define the things you put them next to.

We could also redefine human to 'Adult mammal'

In that way, a human who identifies as dog would feel the legitimacy in their delusion.

I'm pretty sure social roles already are defined.

President
Cook
Soldier.

And again, I don't give a flying f**k what people call themselves. There are humans who believe they are dogs, i don't care.

I only care about not letting politics or personal feelings make me pass delusion as truth.

Saying I am a dog doesn't make me a dog anymore than saying I am a woman makes me one.