Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
These topics are not intended to discuss the Scientific and Religious confronts. And please do not mock with these confronts Tabun, because these confronts are not funny, but are fights between people's believes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
  
Posts: 3330
|
The manner in which these 'confrontations' occur itself is a mockery, which is only what I want to point out with that. If people want to 'fight' for or against beliefs, our CC is open to Controversy regarding the way it is done too.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-06-23, 15:38 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Let's be realistic here, all these "studies" that link video games and violence - who are doing these studies, are they not scientists? Aren't they doing it because of an agenda, or that they're being told to do it by people who are just itching to prove a point and make a connection where none really exists? And why is it that "reason" must summarily dismiss such things as possession, or anything religious in nature, because people "know better" in this day and age? To borrow a line from Ghost Busters, I've seen shit that will turn you white, so does the opinion of some Harvard egghead invalidate my experiences? I'll call bullshit on anyone who tells me my experiences are invalid just because they don't want to accept the possibility of something they don't like being real. Science should not be put on a pedastal, and science (as it stands today) and reason are not the same thing. I don't know how many times I've seen people within the scientific community flat out ignore empirical data because it was "inconvenient" and didn't mesh with the current pet popular theory of the day. When the scientific community follows the scientific method and stops ridiculing religion, spirituality, and unexplained events that are of great significance to people then perhaps I'll take it a bit more seriously. I have absolutely no problem with the scientific method as a process for fact finding, it's the culture I take issue with. When people ignore facts out of convenience on either side of the aisle I take issue. I have as much a problem with the belief that the earth is no older than 6,000 years as I do the idea of the Big Bang. I sure as hell don't believe dinosaurs were wiped out in Noah's flood.
If science is not questioned, and especially the motives of those involved in it, then the ignorance of blind acceptence is just as dangerous as if applied to religion or a political ideology. Reason belongs to neither science nor religion, and ignorance belongs only to those who fail to question what they're told, regardless of the source. Remember also that there's pure science which is only interested in discovery, and applied science which uses knowledge to achieve an end. The latter is much, much more prevalent than the former, and human intentions are involved in both, the same as religion. Religion may have brought man the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Jihad, but science gave man the swords, the guns, and the atomic bombs with which to wage them. No one is guiltless.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-06-23, 16:30 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
I agree with you there Phoenix. I totally agree that the studies presented here are full of straw men, red herring and misrepresentation (if not more) - I don't think that justifies an attack on science in general. I don't see 'bias' as an essential part of science, but as a part of human nature and society. If there is one area in which the essence and intent per definition is to try and evolve understanding and reasoning, it is science. (esp. if you include philosphopy in the term) The question of guilt of any sort did not enter my mind at all. Being judgemental is, too, a part of human nature, if you ask me. I will not deny that people who call themselves scientists, researchers are not subject to cognitive or even willful bias. However, I certainly think that it is an area in which there is at least the goal of trying to be free from just that. No true scientist would willfully disregard evidence against his or her own claims, deny the opportunity to others to contradict or test their theories or have a specific political (hidden) agenda. Anyone who is guilty of any of that is in my eyes not a scientist, but a petty, sophistic 'manager of information'. --- (Wordsmyth:) 1. systematic observation and testing of natural phenomena in a search for general laws and conclusive evidence.
~
3. any disciplined, systematized area of study.
or see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceObviously, my definition is more strict than any dictionary/general definition will be. I also want to stress that I by no means disagree with the attacks on empiricism listed on that Wikipedia page. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-06-23, 17:03 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Moshman
|
Check this out. http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/s...cienceFaith.htmI'm not a bias against science, but what I'm saying is there would be no science if it were not for the Bible. It (the Bible) delivered more scientific fact (not theories mind you) then any scientist could deliver. This page lists many famous scientists who were inspired by the passages of the Bible. The Bible and Science work hand in hand, one without the other will cause problems, and bias. Consider it, don't make me post my Mr.Ignoramus story. ;^) It just seems that since scientists shuned God from their motives, more theories, then facts come out of their research. Theory is a guess, a speculation, not fact. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-06-23, 18:33 by Little Washu »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
Please, post what you will, I'm beginning to become curious about a text with an insult in the title ;] As for 'working hand in hand', the Bible is an object, a text. It does not do any of the working - it's people who do the working. The interpreting and writing of it, to be precise. (yes this is a claim, and no, I didn't place it here for any other reason than to once again be ' the devil's advocate') Oops - this brings us back to an earlier 'discussion', which I took my distance from then, and I will stick with that. There seems to be the idea that the whole idea behind science is to disprove religious convictions, which is not the case. In any case, it does not (or should not  ) shout a decisive 'fact' when the right words to use would be 'fact, fiction, fantasy or falsehood' - hence 'theory', which combines all the possibilities to form a structure of (sound) reasoning. To attack theories for being theories is similar to attacking agnosticism in all the common ways. The whole point of the thing is that the meaning of the word 'fact' seems to be different for so many people, and that those who make the least bold claims are called the impulsive and 'inane' ones, which keeps being a surprise to me every time. I guess I just would like to see a discussion about a simple sociological/political problem not devolve into a series of dogmatic statements.. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-06-23, 19:10 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I think the problem there is people will always have strong opinions and beliefs, and people with differing beliefs react differently to the same problem. This kind of topic actually provides a good insight into just such a scenario, which is why I find it useful for my own observations. How Washu reacts is different from how you or I react, Kruzader also reacts in a different way. We all share the same thought in regards to the absurd assertion that video games somehow cause violence, yet our subsequent thoughts all vary in which direction they proceed. Some tend to make blunt statements out of anger or frustration, others hold back and are more reserved. I don't see anything wrong with any of it, it's just a question of one's nature. How one sees the world is based in what they know, and what they accept. We are all ruled by some kind of dogma, whether we acknowledge it as dogma or not. It's a matter of being conscious of it, as well as how people react who believe differently. One must acknowledge that in choosing not to decide one still makes a choice. Even agnostics are governed by rules they create for themselves. The main thing is to not let ones beliefs override one's ability to make rational decisions.
What I find amazing is that both science and theology are human inventions used to attempt to understand and describe something much larger than man. In reality they should get along when you consider they are on the same mission, just taking two different approaches. Many great scientific minds never lost sight of the wonder of the universe they were trying to understand, nor did they sacrifice a belief in something larger than man in the process. I think it was a drive to understand more closely the creator by understanding the creation, if anything, that brought forth their efforts. Instead of self-important arrogance, they exhibited a humble awe at this cosmos and all its workings. At the same time, many God-fearing people exist within the scientific and medical communities today, and some of the most important scientific inventions were created for what were initially religious purposes. The printing press, and the widespread teaching of reading and writing are a fine example of a direct result of this. Many of the best artworks of the Renaissance contain religious subject matter. Some of the most amazing architectural advancements were made in the construction of cathedrals, or temples. The pyramids in Egypt, South America, the acropolis in Greece, the Parthenon, the great stoneworks in England, and the earthworks in America - all these were attempts by man using science to get closer to the object(s) of his deepest admiration and respect. Science and faith historically have worked together, I see no reason why one must exclude the other in this day. It is the decisions of men, as you so rightly stated, that has led to this.
Which brings me full circle. Science is a tool, and in the case of this article, it's being used to push forward an agenda. Someone once said "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics". I think that person was wise. How many bad public opinion polls, skewed statistics, or rigged studies have resulted in specific action being taken that otherwise would not be? Deception is deception, and a lie, no matter how plausible it sounds, is still a lie. If video games caused violence, would we be here discussing controversial matters in a heated, yet civil manner, or would we be out gunning down grannies with AK-47's?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
Well said.
Back on topic :] - I think we do indeed all agree that the blame lies not with violence in games.
That said, after having played games like GTA:SA, I think the voice acting (although technically good,) is awful. It encourages 'talking gangsta' by creating the theme for another lousy fad. Ofcourse, that is only a problem because people play who shouldn't be allowed to, considering their age.
I don't fear games teaching us to be criminal deviants, but I do think any medium can teach impressionable people annoying or plain horrible traits.
For instance, the back of a chocolate sprinkles carton here (brand-name Venz, perhaps GK knows it) shows little games, puzzles and riddles for kids. That's a smart marketing movement, and as far as I know, it works. Besides, they make good chocolate, so that's acceptable. Where they go wrong is that they use hipster slang in presenting the stuff. A loose translation might be, "Yo, solve this sheet and be coo' yaknow!" for something that ought to read "Solve the following riddle:" Usually punctuation horrors are present, like several exclamation marks in a row, etc. The core consumer group for this product, and the texts on it: kids.
I do think the rest of the world (especially bastard business marketeers) should work with educators and parents here. Sure, parents can stop buying that brand, but you know how peer pressure and fads work for kids. It's also less easily detectable as a problem in society. Take the fact that we (that is, humans on average) see commercials as a normal, acceptable things, while they're designed to trick and semi-brainwash us (into buying shit we don't need)...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-06-23, 20:55 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
scalliano
Elite
Posts: 1095
Yup, that's me
|
FPS games aren't real life?? Dammit, that's why "kick all" doesn't work ...
I find myself quite dismissive not of religion itself, but of those in heightened positions who advocate it, as usually they're the ones perpetuating the hate in the world. Science isn't without its evils either, as Pho pointed out, as we invent more effective and efficient ways of killing those who disagree with us.
"When you talk to God, it's called prayer, but when God talks to you, it's called paranoid schizophrenia ..." -Billy Connolly (I think)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
PSN ID: scalliano
The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Tab: Well, here's food for thought. Almost all humans breed at some point. Since those employed at marketing firms tend to have offspring, what does that say about their character: either knowing their own offspring will be exposed to the marketing and not caring, being completely oblivious to the fact that they are, or else fully complicit with the said brainwashing? I'm also sad to see "gangsta" speech invading even Europe. For all the Euro bashing that goes on in the US, I was hoping at least that you'd be spared that curse over there and maintain at least a little bit of that "refined" air. (How does it even translate into other languages anyway?)
I think impressionable minds, especially young ones, don't need to be seeing graphic violence or other questionable media precisely because they are young and impressionable. Desensitization is a tool used in mental conditioning for military and espionage purposes, among other things. I think a certain level of maturity should be reached, where one has a firm grasp of reality, before playing such games, listening to that kind of music, or watching those kinds of movies. Ratings exist for a reason. If games are so dangerous, why let the kids play them? Would you hand a 12 year old a loaded gun? Then why give them a video game that's below their maturity level? That's where it's up to the parents to stay involved and actually participate in their kids lives. I don't buy the "too busy" excuse either. If you're too busy to pay attention to your kids, then you're too busy to have kids in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
For instance, the back of a chocolate sprinkles carton here (brand-name Venz, perhaps GK knows it) shows little games, puzzles and riddles for kids. That's a smart marketing movement I always thought the games where standard and including chocolate was the marketing move . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moshman
|
Very true, Satan works in all of us, attacks us when we are vulnerable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Woolie Wool
|
There will never be a shortage of stupid sporking morons. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
