US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[ganbaru]

Jack Welch accuses Obama of cooking jobs numbers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-jobs-numbers/

Immediately following of a jobs report showing unemployment below 8 percent for the first time in four years, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch accused the White House of skewing the numbers to help President Obama win.
Welch doubled down on his accusation in an afternoon interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying, “I wasn’t kidding.”

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Chandela

Although these numbers don't include people who no longer receive unemployment benefits and or stopped looking for work. So good numbers? Yeeeeeaaaahhhhhh I don't know about that.

Well, better numbers.

[Vexx]

Well, Jack Welch, the numbers were "cooked" between 2000-2008 as well (and before that). They just don't reflect what is going on in the economy or job market. They don't reflect underemployment, they don't reflect people who have given up in despair, they don't reflect seasonal/temp/contract work. Where were you then, *Jack*?

[Chandela]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Well, better numbers.

Better? If creating the misconception that the unemployment rate is falling more then it actually is among the people of the country is better then yeah I guess, hint hint.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Can I just say that is one of the largest piece of BS I've ever heard in any format? There is no superior or inferior way of thinking, given the limitations of humans. The fact that people think science is the answer is the same kind of idolatry that anti-religion people accuse the religious of, and in fact I believe them to be no different from the extreme religions that they speak down of.

Assertion. False Equivalency. Some ways of thinking will get you eaten by tigers, others are less likely to.

The scientific method is WHAT CONSCIOUS BEINGS DO when they're creating a model of reality in their head. Collect Data -> Form Hypothesis, Create Model-> Collect more data->modify model. If model can't explain data with modification, toss model out, new model.

Creatures that don't do that don't tend to do well. If data is discarded because it doesn't fit what an ancient text says, it is not going to go well. Even the Dalai Lama gets that.

[Sumeragi]

Scientific method does not equal science. That is the fundamental misunderstanding of those who believe science to be superior to other beliefs.

[Vexx]

O.o You're using the word "science" in a way that doesn't make sense:

Originally Posted by Science, Merriam Webster

: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

Are you trying to talk about people who wave the results of science around without understanding how the results were arrived at?

[Zakoo]

Hmm science is defined as "all the knowledge caracterized in one field and gained with a proper methodology, based on an objective view".

Honestly there's countless definition, we are more going on semantic than something else, if we look only of fact, it's only thanks to science that humanity advanced and progressed. Religions had its share, true, but they often kept people ignorants.

But Vexx, imho you are too anti clerical, religion itself isn't evil, it's needed for human, humankind need an answer to "what happens after life" and it's something science won't ever answer.
The problem is how people take too strictly what was written, and on this point we have those same extremist people on the science side.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Scientific method does not equal science. That is the fundamental misunderstanding of those who believe science to be superior to other beliefs.

But science without the scientific method is just Alchemy.

I personally apply the scientific method to not just science, but everything else in my life. This is why I am no longer an atheist, yet reject all modern religions; using the scientific method, it is unwise to reject the possibility of higher dimensions. However, it is entirely outrageous to claim that the possible existence of deity(s) have any relevance to the idea of worship.

Seriously. I do not know where "worship" came from, or where it is based on. It is entirely irrelevant in theological debates.

I would really like to know what is the justification of worshipping. Other than "the deity said so".

[Sumeragi]

The point is that while the scientific method might be more "objective" in arriving at a conclusion, the end result (science) is still subject to the limitations of humans, both in the context of understanding the results of the scientific method and in formulating the methods that arrived at the conclusion.

Essentially, science is as flawed as humans are, despite the scientific method somewhat covering the deficiencies. While there might be progress towards a better understanding of reality, that understanding of reality in itself is questionable because humans are limited. The main problem I'm seeing with those who bring up science as some perfect alternative to religion is the seemingly "fundamentalist" (for lack of a better word) belief in science, a system that is as flawed as humans.

Vallen Chaos Valiant brought up a good word I was looking for: worship. I do not believe science to be something to be worshipped, just as I do not believe in worshipping religions. As long as humans are fundamentally flawed, nothing should be worshipped.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

The point is that while the scientific method might be more "objective" in arriving at a conclusion, the end result (science) is still subject to the limitations of humans, both in the context of understanding the results of the scientific method and in formulating the methods that arrived at the conclusion.

Essentially, science is as flawed as humans are, despite the scientific method somewhat covering the deficiencies. While there might be progress towards a better understanding of reality, that understanding of reality in itself is questionable because humans are limited. The main problem I'm seeing with those who bring up science as some perfect alternative to religion is the seemingly "fundamental" (for lack of a better word) belief in science, a system that is as flawed as humans.

No one's saying science is perfect. Just that it's better than blind belief. Which is why sick people generally go to the doctor instead of trying to pray themselves healthy.

Originally Posted by Zakoo

But Vexx, imho you are too anti clerical, religion itself isn't evil,

He never said it was evil. He said that denying reality was a bad idea.

it's needed for human, humankind need an answer to "what happens after life" and it's something science won't ever answer.

No, we really don't. I live quite well without having a definite answer to that question, and if I did feel the need, I wouldn't need religion to make up an answer.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

The point is that while the scientific method might be more "objective" in arriving at a conclusion, the end result (science) is still subject to the limitations of humans, both in the context of understanding the results of the scientific method and in formulating the methods that arrived at the conclusion.

Essentially, science is as flawed as humans are, despite the scientific method somewhat covering the deficiencies. While there might be progress towards a better understanding of reality, that understanding of reality in itself is questionable because humans are limited. The main problem I'm seeing with those who bring up science as some perfect alternative to religion is the seemingly "fundamental" (for lack of a better word) belief in science, a system that is as flawed as humans.

That's where you are mistaken.

What made the scientific method superior to religion, isn't that it has less flaws; it's that the scientific method doesn't pretend it doesn't have any flaws.
The Scientific Method exists solely to change. To alter the interpretation in light of new data. When necessary, the scientific method can and would morph to fit new realities.

Religion claim to have all the answers. The Scientific Method is simply the promise that we would never stop looking for better answers.

This is not about being right or being wrong; it is about being able to known when you are wrong. And Religion is inherently incapable of admitting error, because the rules are not suppose to change.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

The point is that while the scientific method might be more "objective" in arriving at a conclusion, the end result (science) is still subject to the limitations of humans, both in the context of understanding the results of the scientific method and in formulating the methods that arrived at the conclusion.

Essentially, science is as flawed as humans are, despite the scientific method somewhat covering the deficiencies. While there might be progress towards a better understanding of reality, that understanding of reality in itself is questionable because humans are limited. The main problem I'm seeing with those who bring up science as some perfect alternative to religion is the seemingly "fundamentalist" (for lack of a better word) belief in science, a system that is as flawed as humans.

Okay, I can follow that though I think it can easily be used an excuse by some to ignore logic and the scientific method. I'd rather use the scientific method as my tool than the alternative.

And @Zakoo, yeah, if I understand what "anti-clerical" means, yes I take a really dim view of large-scale institutionalization of religion. It is a magnet for powermongers who abuse spirituality to dictate and hold power. Eternal damnation for not doing what they say is a powerful tool with the fearful.

I completely understand the origins of religous thought and if it had stayed "by the campfire" (localized), it certainly soothes the night fears of the darkness. When some guy says "stone that lady or the night things will come" and he gets to loot the corpse as well as pass the plate... we gots a problem

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

No, we really don't. I live quite well without having a definite answer to that question, and if I did feel the need, I wouldn't need religion to make up an answer.

Yes yes, I live fine with the idea that I'm only made of N, C, O and that once I die I will return to nothingness and those thing will be used to create ants, but your and mine case, aren't the case of the majority of human.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That's where you are mistaken.

What made the scientific method superior to religion, isn't that it has less flaws; it's that the scientific method doesn't pretend it doesn't have any flaws.
The Scientific Method exists solely to change. To alter the interpretation in light of new data. When necessary, the scientific method can and would morph to fit new realities.

Religion claim to have all the answers. The Scientific Method is simply the promise that we would never stop looking for better answers.

I am certain I was not mistaken. I have been specifically comparing SCIENCE to religions, not the scientific method to religions. Both science and religions are systems, thus one should be comparing systems and not the method of arriving at the systems.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

This is not about being right or being wrong; it is about being able to known when you are wrong. And Religion is inherently incapable of admitting error, because the rules are not suppose to change.

Unfortunately, that is the wrong kind of assumption to make. There are flexible religions that are supposed to change in the face of errors and changes, such as the initial state of Shinto (before we got the static State Shinto and all the problems that brought about). The belief that religions are incapable of admitting error is in itself an error, given that it ignores the development of religions. Just as Protestantism is a growth out of Catholicism, religions are capable of admitting errors (in terms of doctrines) and changing.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Okay, I can follow that though I think it can easily be used an excuse by some to ignore logic and the scientific method. I'd rather use the scientific method as my tool than the alternative.

Well, the basic premise of my thought is that the scientific method IS the superior way of THINKING, but that does not mean the main end result (science) is necessarily superior. Essentially, one would need to understand that the method is not necessarily the system.

[Ithekro]

Balance between the two tends to be were humanity profits the most in terms of progress.

[Xacual]

Originally Posted by Chandela

Better? If creating the misconception that the unemployment rate is falling more then it actually is among the people of the country is better then yeah I guess, hint hint.

That's how the jobless rate has always been calculated though, which means yes the jobless rate has fallen. I mean there's no reason to complain about this specific report since you might as well complain about all of them then.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Balance between the two tends to be were humanity profits the most in terms of progress.

I have been waiting for someone to say this. Unfortunately in this world, people wanting to be recognised wanted to be different, so they decided to take some unique, far-off and extreme opinion. Either on the side of extreme side of atheism or religion, then branding others to be improperly moralised.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I am certain I was not mistaken. I have been specifically comparing SCIENCE to religions, not the scientific method to religions. Both science and religions are systems, thus one should be comparing systems and not the method of arriving at the systems.

Well, the basic premise of my thought is that the scientific method IS the superior way of THINKING, but that does not mean the main end result (science) is necessarily superior. Essentially, one would need to understand that the method is not necessarily the system.

So, basically, twice a day, a stopped clock is better than a working, if human-made and thus imperfect, one.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I have been waiting for someone to say this. Unfortunately in this world, people wanting to be recognised wanted to be different, so they decided to take some unique, far-off and extreme opinion. Either on the side of extreme side of atheism or religion, then branding others to be improperly moralised.

I can't say that because I question the notion there is some standard of balance between the two positions. Basically, this is cynicalism at its finest

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So, basically, twice a day, a stopped clock is better than a working, if human-made and thus imperfect, one.

Pretty sure you're using the wrong analogy. A better analogy would be: It is difficult to say that a mechanical clock is necessarily superior to a sundial.