So while waiting for my borohydride yesterday I decided to start a chapter of this organization at my school (the University of Utah). This (http://www.secularstudents.org/) is their homepage. So far I'm not sure if I'll get funding but I'm really motivated to get it started; I know there's a community of secular students here just waiting to be tapped. But first I have a few questions about what I should do here. Please don't just tell me to look on their website because I've done that and would like to know what you think personally. Any student organization management experience would also be great. Some questions:

1) What are some non-atheistic activities that you could recommend? I'm not a "theism is a mental disease"-type of atheist so I'd hate to drive anybody away and intend for at least some activities/meetings to not be religion-related.

2) Further, what are some atheistic activities that I can do? I'll be sure to do an "ask an atheist/agnostic" student panel, several debates, a few films, etc., but do you guys have any other ideas? I'm not going to go proselytizing, but I intend to draw my group members around something, so something of this sort is necessary.

3) Though the Univ. of Utah is a public school, about 50% of its students are Mormons, and many more are also quite religious, though I'm sure I could get a few non-theists to join. Should I make events highly public? What level of advertising should there be? It's not that I'm afraid of the religious majority but I'd just rather not have them involved; I know several other organization leaders have received death threats in other schools, so maybe it's better off as a small organization. What do you think?

4) Any general tips? Anything I should look out for? In the organization's constitution, it states that all students may vote. Is this policy at risk of allowing theists to vote on the direction of the organization? Is there any way I can prevent this? I can't outright say "you have to have serious doubts about religion to join", because that would be discriminatory and my school doesn't allow that, but surely there's another way to get around this potential problem.

Normally I don't think these secular societies appeal to many non believers, it seems strange to form a group on the absence of belief. But in your case I can see why being situated in Utah might make you want to get your voice heard. People passionate about rejecting theism tend to also be quite passionate about science and the scientific method. I think that's definitely something you could use to attract people to your society.

I'm not sure if it's common for groups in your area to be called alliances but there seems something slightly militant about the word. Maybe 'society' would be better?

Do what you want, but I think these things can get out of hand.

Do you think when people started telling others about brotherly love and peace and God and all that stuff, that they had any intention of creating these gigantic, manipulative and corrupt organizations called religions?

You might intend to keep things peaceful, just some light discussion between like minded people ... but do you think you'll have any control over what a group wants? Which decisions the group will make, which directions it will take in the future?

Instead of building wall higher and dividing people up into little sections of similarity, why don't you make a group for anyone to join in? Organize a ton of fun games. Promote open-mindedness, give lectures on the importance of listening to others and allowing them to have their own opinion, and then promote open minded discussion on taboo topics, like religion.

Normally I don't think these secular societies appeal to many non believers, it seems strange to form a group on the absence of belief. But in your case I can see why being situated in Utah might make you want to get your voice heard. People passionate about rejecting theism tend to also be quite passionate about science and the scientific method. I think that's definitely something you could use to attract people to your society.
That's what I used as the description of the group; promoting the scientific method and what not. There are schools of 2,000 students that have a secular organization whereas here I have 30,000 students and none. I've had some enthusiasm from the people that I've already talked to so I think it will be easy to

I'm not sure if it's common for groups in your area to be called alliances but there seems something slightly militant about the word. Maybe 'society' would be better?

I was thinking about calling it an "association" because I had the exact same concern, but I figured if the gays can have a gay-straight alliance, why can't the atheists have the same?

Instead of building wall higher and dividing people up into little sections of similarity, why don't you make a group for anyone to join in? Organize a ton of fun games. Promote open-mindedness, give lectures on the importance of listening to others and allowing them to have their own opinion, and then promote open minded discussion on taboo topics, like religion.
The group is open to anybody; my only fear is that because of this openness, it will be taken over by people that don't have the initial interests of the organization at heart. I'd love to have theists in my group as long as they don't dominate it into uselessness.

Also, "lectures on the importance of listening to others" won't interest anybody, atheist or otherwise; though I might do it for a non-religion-based activity. The group actually is made partly to promote the discussion of religion, though it does so in a way that's more confrontational than inviting speakers to talk about tolerance. Ultimately I think it's more useful even for theists to become more open-minded through discussion with atheists rather than an enhancement of tolerance.

promoting the scientific method

So you want to promote myths too? If you want your license, you'll have to join the queue. But it's a bit of a wait: there's Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and they're all ahead of you.

Do you want to expand on what you're trying to say?

Do you want to expand on what you're trying to say?

Regulars here know that I do not believe that there is a single, all-encompassing scientific method. Rather, I believe this to be a principle of an outdated philosophy of science that accompanies two dangerous ideologies from the Enlightenment: positivism and scientism (I say dangerous, for instance, because of the penchant of their proponents to classify all opposition as mentally ill). In contrast to this philosophy of science, I encourage people to take it upon themselves to critically realize the complexities and nuances of science and that the problem of demarcation remains unsolved in an attempt to qualm the dangerous aspects of these ideologies, while encouraging the positive sides (free thought, for instance, and I mean free thought).

So you want to promote myths too? If you want your license, you'll have to join the queue. But it's a bit of a wait: there's Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and they're all ahead of you.

How about "promote the scientific method as a means of attaining truth"?

Do you want to expand on what you're trying to say?

Me or Geist?

Regulars here know that I do not believe that there is a single, all-encompassing scientific method. Rather, I believe this to be a principle of an outdated philosophy of science that accompanies two dangerous ideologies from the Enlightenment: positivism and scientism (I say dangerous, for instance, because of the penchant of their proponents to classify all opposition as mentally ill). In contrast to this philosophy of science, I encourage people to take it upon themselves to critically realize the complexities and nuances of science and that the problem of demarcation remains unsolved in an attempt to qualm the dangerous aspects of these ideologies, while encouraging the positive sides (free thought, for instance, and I mean free thought).

'Outdated' is an interesting word for you to use sitting at a computer typing philosophy. For all the times I've heard the argument I have never seen anyone suggest an alternative to finding out information about the universe and making progress. Using terms like scientism is damaging and I think shows a lack of understanding.

making progress

Careful with that one.

'Outdated' is an interesting word for you to use sitting at a computer typing philosophy. For all the times I've heard the argument I have never seen anyone suggest an alternative to finding out information about the universe and making progress.

You seem to be confusing me for someone criticizing science. I am not, I am criticizing a philosophy of science that contains an oversimplified conception of science and the ideologies that use it to further their own ends.

Using terms like scientism is damaging and I think shows a lack of understanding.

I don’t see how it is damaging to call philosophies and ideologies by their names, nor do I see how it shows that I lack understanding in anything.

I think it's damaging to put the concept of gaining truth through comparing prediction with experiment and the concept of gaining truth through religion on an equal footing. In regard to the scientific method maybe I should have said "For all the times I've heard the argument I have never seen anyone suggest an alternative for finding out information about the universe and making progress".

I think it's damaging to put the concept of gaining truth through comparing prediction with experiment and the concept of gaining truth through religion on an equal footing.

And I never once put them on equal footing in this thread. I don't even think you know what you are arguing against.

So you want to promote myths too? If you want your license, you'll have to join the queue. But it's a bit of a wait: there's Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and they're all ahead of you.

This looks to me like you are putting them on equal footing.

This looks to me like you are putting them on equal footing.

No, I am putting the belief that there is a single, all-encompassing scientific method on equal footing with religious myths. I am not putting the method people believe to be the single, all-encompassing scientific method on equal footing with religious myths. I think it is a very good method, just that it isn't all-encompassing, isn't always useful (in fact, I think history shows that it can be quite the opposite for scientific advancement), isn't what qualifies something as scientific, and that to say otherwise is to oversimplify science.

No, I am putting the belief that there is a single, all-encompassing scientific method on equal footing with religious myths. I am not putting the method people believe to be the single, all-encompassing scientific method on equal footing with religious myths. I think it is a very good method, just that it isn't all-encompassing and isn't what qualifies something as scientific, and that to say otherwise is to oversimplify science.

I understood what you were saying but what doesn't it encompass? For someone that believes that it encompasses all phenomena then they are the same. Just to state the obvious I believe that because of evidence.

I understood what you were saying but what doesn't it encompass?

There are some examples here (http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43838). It is a fairly common idea in philosophy of science nowadays, but for some reason, people found it very hard to comprehend when Feyerabend published his book “Against Method” (the title is ironic) way back in the seventies. He was wrongly accused of all kinds of nonsense, like relativism. Anyway, it is because of ideas like that that modern philosophy of science has largely shifted from emphasis on prescription of rules to description of practice.

I am criticizing a philosophy of science that contains an oversimplified conception of science

What what would that "oversimplified conception of science" be exactly? All you've provided in this thread is accusations with no clear explanation of what you're arguing against.

While you're at it could you please quote these people you are complaining about? They must be very numerous, so it should be easy.. A handful of examples would do just fine!

What what would that "oversimplified conception of science" be exactly?

I said numerous times that the oversimplified conception of science is the idea that it has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science.

All you've provided in this thread is accusations with no clear explanation of what you're arguing against.

But all of my posts have been nothing but an attempt to explain what I meant in my original post to l33t-haX0r.

While you're at it could you please quote these people you are complaining about?

I quoted one in my very first post, and I may be wrong, but judging from his last post, l33t-haX0r seems to hold this position too.

I said numerous times that the oversimplified conception of science is the idea that it has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science.

Yes, you've said that. That's exactly what remains vague. You've yet to give an example.


But all of my posts have been nothing but an attempt to explain what I meant in my original post to l33t-haX0r.Not all your posts (since you've replied to other people, like nshaning for example).

Not to mention that that's a terrible excuse... as if you couldn't provide an example while providing those explanations - or as if an example wouldn't actually aid you in the explanation itself!



I quoted one in my very first post, and I may be wrong, but judging from his last post, l33t-haX0r seems to hold this position too.So one cannot say "the scientific method" without falling pray to the problem of demarcation? One cannot, for example, think that there are many different ones, but one of them is better? So you got "oversimplified conception of science [where science] has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science" from "the scientific method"?

Yes, you've said that. That's exactly what remains vague. You've yet to give an example.

Well I hoped to give examples of methods and why they aren't universal in the link I provided for l33t-haX0r in my last post to him, if you want to look at them.

Not all your posts (since you've replied to other people, like nshaning for example).

My very first post was to nshanin, but all subsequent posts, except the ones intended for you, were attempts to explain my position to l33t-haX0r, not prove it to him. He asked me to expand on what I was trying to say, and that's precisely what I did.

Not to mention that that's a terrible excuse... as if you couldn't provide an example while providing those explanations - or as if an example wouldn't actually aid you in the explanation itself!

I wasn't trying to make excuses, I was trying to put across disappointment: you said I had given no clear explanation of what I am arguing against, and yet I was trying to do just that. Obviously, I've done a terrible job.

So one cannot say "the scientific method" without falling pray to the problem of demarcation? One cannot, for example, think that there are many different ones, but one of them is better? So you got "oversimplified conception of science [where science] has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science" from "the scientific method"?

Well it seemed to me like they were saying thee scientific method, as if it's the only one. Certainly, you can think there are many different methods, but "better" requires asking "better for what?" If you were to say everything, I would disagree. If you were to say most things, I would be somewhat sceptical. If you and me were scientists -- this is hypothetical, I'm not actually saying we have to be scientists to discuss this -- and you showed it was best for such and such a project we were working on, I'd say lets use it.

Regulars here know that I do not believe that there is a single, all-encompassing scientific method. Rather, I believe this to be a principle of an outdated philosophy of science that accompanies two dangerous ideologies from the Enlightenment: positivism and scientism (I say dangerous, for instance, because of the penchant of their proponents to classify all opposition as mentally ill). In contrast to this philosophy of science, I encourage people to take it upon themselves to critically realize the complexities and nuances of science and that the problem of demarcation remains unsolved in an attempt to qualm the dangerous aspects of these ideologies, while encouraging the positive sides (free thought, for instance, and I mean free thought).


He never stated that he was promoting THE single, solitary, all-encompassing scientific method. You're splitting hairs, Hare. The fact that he used "the" rather than "a" doesn't mean he's pushing positivism or scientism. He was quite clear in stating that he wasn't the type of atheist to consider believers to be mentally ill, so you can't pigeonhole him on that, either. A group of secular-minded people who favor a scientific worldview over a religious worldview are perfectly capable of encouraging free thought.

The fact that he used "the" rather than "a" doesn't mean he's pushing positivism or scientism.

To split some more hairs, I quoted the page nshanin linked to, not he himself (you won't find "promoting the scientific method" in the OP's post). I was criticizing the alliance as a whole in general, not individual members.

A group of secular-minded people who favor a scientific worldview over a religious worldview are perfectly capable of encouraging free thought.

I'm not denying that for any minute.

To OP: I'd entirely avoid doing anything similar to Camp Quest (http://michigan.camp-quest.com/CQ%20FAMILY%20CAMP.pdf)("The secular summer camp!").

Was it a coincidence, or sheer cleverness that made them choose Hell, Michigan for their campout retreat?

Well I hoped to give examples of methods and why they aren't universal in the link I provided for l33t-haX0r in my last post to him, if you want to look at them.

I read it. I saw hypothetical examples, or examples what other people - people not from this board- have said. While that's appreciated, I've seen you claim in this forum (maybe not on this thread though - I apologize if that's the case) that regulars here have those positions. That's what I'm interested in. Hypothetical scenarios aren't that important to me. I don't doubt we could create silly hypothetical scenarios, nor do I doubt other people, somewhere else, have said something silly.


My very first post was to nshanin, but all subsequent posts, except the ones intended for you, were attempts to explain my position to l33t-haX0r, not prove it to him. He asked me to expand on what I was trying to say, and that's precisely what I did. I said you didn't provide an example. You responded with: "I was explaining what I meant".

Well not only is that not some sort of barrier that prevents your from providing an example, but it would seem like an amazing opportunity to provide an example as it may help in your explanation. That's my point.



Well it seemed to me like they were saying thee scientific method, as if it's the only one. Certainly, you can think there are many different methods, but "better" requires asking "better for what?" If you were to say everything, I would disagree. If you were to say most things, I would be somewhat sceptical. If you and me were scientists -- this is hypothetical, I'm not actually saying we have to be scientists to discuss this -- and you showed it was best for such and such a project we were working on, I'd say lets use it.Except we're not discussing whether or not he would be right or wrong in believing it's better or not - at least I'm not discussing that. What I'm saying is that you are jumping to conclusions if you got "oversimplified conception of science [where science] has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science" from someone simply saying "the scientific method".

In order to get that point across (jumping to conclusions) I provided you with an example (someone who believes there are many methods, yet can indeed use the term "the scientific method" (by referring to one that is special - like the Buddha, or the Christ).


---

To talk more about the link I read it but I believe it's missing a key point. I can believe other methods of the past could in fact lead to knowledge or rational ideas without having to include that process in the demarcation of what "Science is". I can believe that with each passing decade Science improves itself. When James Lind did his clinical trials (one of the first, if not the first) on scurvy, he did not use all the control methods that Science uses today. That means we can consider it a flawed experiment with amazing results, however that doesn't mean we have to accept his methods of control as the way Science must be done.

Yes we can cite numerous examples of Sciences not using "falsification" or any other criteria now deemed necessary or important. That means Science has improved. It means what is Science now, has changed. That doesn't mean I must include those flawed experiements or beliefs in my definition of Science.

You have no motivation; why bother? This rubbishry is the sort of thing which leads to absent minded altruism.

Please don't kill this thread.

Please don't kill this thread.

I love it when they get like this. The degree of detail is what I appreciate about totse, even if I don't really have the time for it.

I read it. I saw hypothetical examples, or examples what other people - people not from this board- have said. While that's appreciated, I've seen you claim in this forum (maybe not on this thread though - I apologize if that's the case) that regulars here have those positions. That's what I'm interested in. Hypothetical scenarios aren't that important to me. I don't doubt we could create silly hypothetical scenarios, nor do I doubt other people, somewhere else, have said something silly.

First, none of the examples in that link are hypothetical. Each case is an example of an actual moment where a scientific breakthrough had to break some rule (that in cases was even considered a universal rule at the time it was broken) a philosopher of science believes has to be used universally, because it is what qualifies something as scientific, and thereby also shows that rigidly following rules (not the idea of following rules itself) can hinder science.

Well not only is that not some sort of barrier that prevents your from providing an example, but it would seem like an amazing opportunity to provide an example as it may help in your explanation. That's my point.

And I said: "Obviously, I've done a terrible job [of explaining myself]."

Except we're not discussing whether or not he would be right or wrong in believing it's better or not - at least I'm not discussing that. What I'm saying is that you are jumping to conclusions if you got "oversimplified conception of science [where science] has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science" from someone simply saying "the scientific method".

In order to get that point across (jumping to conclusions) I provided you with an example (someone who believes there are many methods, yet can indeed use the term "the scientific method" (by referring to one that is special - like the Buddha, or the Christ).

You're missing my point. Again, what's "better" qualified as? "Better" implies it can not only do the job, but do it better, so why use the other methods? And again, "better" for what? Without that being qualified, it could be "better for everything", which leads to the position I'm criticizing, or "better for some things", which I am fine with and not criticizing. Using "the" instead of "a" for the latter position would be very strange. Your example was terrible.

To talk more about the link I read it but I believe it's missing a key point...

We can talk about this in another thread, if you like. Obviously, a very basic overview, such as the content of the link, isn't going to cover all counterpoints and counterpoints to said counterpoints.

First, none of the examples in that link are hypothetical. Each case is an example of an actual moment where a scientific breakthrough had to break some rule (that in cases was even considered a universal rule at the time it was broken) a philosopher of science believes has to be used universally, because it is what qualifies something as scientific, and thereby also shows that rigidly following rules (not the idea of following rules itself) can hinder science.

You're getting confused. Remember, the examples I requested were not of "actual moment[s] where a scientific breakthrough had to break some rule". I requested you give me examples of people who actually believe what you were claiming; that is, that believed in a "oversimplified conception of science [where science] has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science". The link talks about "naïve empiricists" and the like, but that's about it. It leaves it hypothetical in the sense that it doesn't name anyone or clearly explain a person's position, but states essentially, the equivalent of what you said: naïve empiricist that believed in a rigid interpretation of the scientific method.
I want examples of what exactly that rigid interpretation is. I want what the other side actually believes. In specific, I want examples of what that other side is here on totse since I've seen you speaking about regulars here on totse having this belief.


You're missing my point. Again, what's "better" qualified as? "Better" implies it can not only do the job, but do it better, so why use the other methods? And again, "better" for what? Without that being qualified, it could be "better for everything", which leads to the position I'm criticizing, or "better for some things", which I am fine with and not criticizing. Using "the" instead of "a" for the latter position would be very strange. Your example was terrible.

You're missing my point. We don't have to answer that question (i.e. what's "better" qualified as?). Whether a person holds an unjustifiable belief (i.e. lets say he cannot justify to a level you find acceptable, that a specific method is better) does not refute the fact that he can easily hold that belief. He would simply hold a belief not justified in your eyes. My point is that nshanin could have held that belief, and thus that taking "oversimplified conception of science [where science] has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science" from him having said "the scientific method" is jumping to conclusions.

He can believe a particular method is "better for everything" just fine. You might think that's a problem - nobody is questioning that - it however does not mean he believes in a "oversimplified conception of science [where science] has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science". He wouldn't believe in a single all encompassing method that demarcates science from non-science.


We can talk about this in another thread, if you like. Obviously, a very basic overview, such as the content of the link, isn't going to cover all counterpoints and counterpoints to said counterpoints.

If you want, sure.

He can believe a particular method is "better for everything" just fine. You might think that's a problem - nobody is questioning that - it however does not mean he believes in a "oversimplified conception of science [where science] has a single, all-encompassing method and that this method demarcates science from non-science". He wouldn't believe in a single all encompassing method that demarcates science from non-science.

So you're right.

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7070/farnsworth11hj.jpg
Good news everyone!

I reserved a table for 2 hours outside the nexus of campus life at my college and got about 4 names & emails and at least 8 other people who seemed legitimately interested (and took a flyer and/or brochure). This may not sound like much for a 30,000-student campus, but for my state it's fucking awesome! Similar campus groups at other Universities have only had a maximum of perhaps 30 students attend so things are already well underway. I'm doing this for two more days and then emailing everybody the details; looks like it's off to a good start.

So, what time and day should I schedule meetings at? I'm also considering getting speakers from the College Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and some Green organization together in order to facilitate political discussion in the form of a moderated (by me of course) debate for this election year. Some of the questions will undoubtedly be about faith and politics (since it will be hoste3d by the SSA), but certainly not all, and I was wondering if anybody had any tips here. Maybe potential questions?