Faith and Reason.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

We aren't talking about the same thing. You're talking about theories established through scientifical methods, I'm talking about the method itself and the reason why we can construct mathematical models based on what we observed.

Which is a theory being debated applying the scientific method. o lawd

[Diamicles]

I took the time to read most of this thread, and would like to add what I think to the discussion. I am a physicist by education, but have very strong faith as well. I am not part of any organized religions, I have philosophized my own beliefs. On the other hand, being a scientist, I also like to know how everything works, and be able to describe it mathematically.

Faith and science are both necessary parts of the existence of human conscience.

Faith cannot describe science, and science cannot describe faith. Morality cannot be objectively measured with numbers or formulas, and conversely objective measurements using numbers or formulas cannot be perceived as moral or immoral. One cannot survive without the other though; if faith were able to describe everything there would be no need for science, if science were definitive and described everything there would be no need for faith.

Faith complements science because it bridges the gap for some people about the things that science cannot describe, and science complements faith by giving us logic , creating rules for many of the things in our own world, and generally describing the "why" for the physical world as perceived by our race. There is a gray area between the two schools of thought (logic and faith, as I have labeled them), which cannot be bridged however, and that is in the perception of the "why"s that aren't encompassed by formulas, variables, and numbers.

I came to accept the differences in how each of us think a long time ago, there is really no sense in arguing about who is right and who is wrong, because the answer is different for each person depending on how said person thinks.

[Kaylia]

Which is a theory being debated applying the scientific method. o lawd

Like I pointed out to Neosutra earlier, you can't use the method to prove the validity of the method. Well, you can, but recursivity doesn't give you "true" or "false" unless there is an initial statement somewhere to stop the loop.

[Kuya]

Those waves and atmospheres tell us absolutely nothing if we don't analyze them. If we do, we will find causes in conditions; conditions not present in todays society; conditions not necessarily present in future society.

Science contradicts traditional religion. Religion has lost its credibility. If it's going to make a comeback I doubt it's in the form of theism. Erasing knowledge and manipulating history is not the trivial task it once was.

It seems to me like you're conflating religion with theism.

[Kaylia]

Faith and science are both necessary parts of the existence of human conscience.

Certain uncivilized tribe would tell you otherwise, but I agree those behaviors will most likely appears whenever you try to become structured and efficient.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Like I pointed out to Neosutra earlier, you can't use the method to prove the validity of the method. Well, you can, but recursivity doesn't give you "true" or "false" unless there is an initial statement somewhere to stop the loop.

No I'm talking about your statement that we need to first believe that what we are experiencing is real to accept the application of the scientific method.

This is your theory. To not accept that what we experience right now is real means to belief in something metaphysical or beyond our capability. You don't need belief to understand that your keys are connecting with buttons on a keyboard which send an electronic signal to a computing device which allows you to communicate your ideas to someone anywhere in the world. You just do it and it happens.

If you have any reason to think this isn't happening then you need to believe otherwise because you cannot prove it.

[Kaylia]

No I'm talking about your statement that we need to first believe that what we are experiencing is real to accept the application of the scientific method.

This is your theory. To not accept that what we experience right now is real means to belief in something metaphysical or beyond our capability. You don't need belief to understand that your keys are connecting with buttons on a keyboard which send an electronic signal to a computing device which allows you to communicate your ideas to someone anywhere in the world. You just do it and it happens.

If you have any reason to think this isn't happening then you need to believe otherwise because you cannot prove it.

If you don't believe your observation are real, you can't talk about scientific truth.

[Kaylia]

Definition: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.



If you want to change the definition of belief, go for it, I will stick to the dictionary. This is not "my theory" or anything, sciences accept those observations as true, and that's how it works. It's a belief by definition...what else can I say.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

If you don't believe your observation are real, you can't talk about scientific truth.

be·lief Listen to the pronunciation of belief
Pronunciation:
\bə-ˈlēf\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
Date:
12th century

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms belief , faith , credence , credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.
synonyms see in addition opinion



We talking about the same word here?

[Kuya]

What people here don't seem to like is the word faith, so perhaps they would prefer it if you said assumed or accepted a priori instead, Kaylia.

[Demosthenes11]

We're experiencing this world, there is no belief needed. Huge difference and misconception there.

LOL go tell that to a cognitive scientist and they will laugh in your face.
What you perceive and view as reality is not the way the world is, but how your brain interprets it. Everything we view is a belief - a belief that what we are viewing is the reality. It might not be a conscious belief but it's there

[Kaylia]

What people here don't seem to like is the word faith, so perhaps they would prefer it if you said assumed or accepted a priori instead, Kaylia.

This is exactly why I'm using this particular word here. However, it doesn't change the fact that you need a single beliefs to build scientifical method.


Religion make assumption..they just make more than one, and some of them contradict scientifical methods at time.

[Rammses]

It seems to me like you're conflating religion with theism.

No, it was a response to your initial statement about your belief that man will always believe in a god or gods, which I disagreed with. Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 = Traditional religion has lost its credibility.

By traditional religion I mean theism, traditional creationism, salvationism etc. I don't know if that's correct, but you get the point.

[Diamicles]

This is exactly why I'm using this particular word here. However, it doesn't change the fact that you need a single beliefs to build scientifical method.

I would disagree with you here. Unless, of course, you mean the belief that what you perceive is reality, as Demosthenes11 said.

"Working Hypothesis" is used in cases of science and reason, where you have a reasonable conclusion that can/will be reinforced with scientific evidence.

I'm going to step aside in this discussion now though, spinning tires in an endless debate isn't what I'd call constructive.

[0ni0n]

This is exactly why I'm using this particular word here. However, it doesn't change the fact that you need a single beliefs to build scientifical method.


Religion make assumption..they just make more than one, and some of them contradict scientifical methods at time.

You believe in something because it is suggested, proved by a collection of overwhelming scientific evidence is utterly different than believing something completely baseless. With science, you don't start with a conclusion like it's with religion. People do not conveniently manipulate, reinterpret evidence to support a static make-believe.

The assumptions in science are educated guesses, fact-based intuition while the assumptions in religion are nothing more than a fragment of your imagination.

[Kuya]

The idea that science itself and its methodologies are based on pure logic and reason is simplistic. If you look at Kuhn's explanation of change within the scientific community it can be seen that logic or reason are not necessarily what wins. Furthermore, what is referred to as the scientific method is in itself a positivist and inductive method, which must assume, that only that which is empirical is true. In other words, it assumes a priori that if you can't observe it, then it is not true. So i do not understand what people are exactly disagreeing with Kaylia about.

An epistemological paradigm shift was called a scientific revolution by epistemologist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results, and some the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.

When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm. Again, for early 20th century physics, the transition between the Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview was neither instantaneous nor calm, and instead involved a protracted set of "attacks," both with empirical data as well as rhetorical or philosophical arguments, by both sides, with the Einsteinian theory winning out in the long-run. Again, the weighing of evidence and importance of new data was fit through the human sieve: some scientists found the simplicity of Einstein's equations to be most compelling, while some found them more complicated than the notion of Maxwell's aether which they banished. Some found Eddington's photographs of light bending around the sun to be compelling, some questioned their accuracy and meaning. Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[Meian]

Wow several pages since my last post, I'll read the rest later. But first...

What's really pathetic is when someone asks people like you to comment on what Huckabee said and none of you ever have anything to say to the contrary. We posted this in every single one of the 10 threads regarding religion between November and Today, February 27th, 2009.

Not one answer. Not one comment. Pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.

In politics, I stay away from it. I use to be active in it but it is just a flame fest no one will ever agree or win on so I stayed away from it for the past few years especially on message boards even BG; I have gotten to the point in politics that "results" is all that matters, not fancy words or speeches because that doesn't cut it for me anymore.

So, sorry if I wasn't there reading page after page of every clone thread regarding the elections where there was likely to be shitstorming everywhere. Way to assume I read every thread on this forum, pathetic =)

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

LOL go tell that to a cognitive scientist and they will laugh in your face.
What you perceive and view as reality is not the way the world is, but how your brain interprets it. Everything we view is a belief - a belief that what we are viewing is the reality. It might not be a conscious belief but it's there

No they would actually agree with me as their purpose is to understand the processes we experience of reality.

Cognitive science: the term

The term "cognitive" in "cognitive science" is "used for any kind of mental operation or structure that can be studied in precise terms" (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). This conceptualization is very broad, and should not be confused with how "cognitive" is used in some traditions of analytic philosophy, where "cognitive" has to do only with formal rules and truth conditional semantics. (Nonetheless, that interpretation would bring one close to the historically dominant school of thought within cognitive science on the nature of cognition - that it is essentially symbolic, propositional, and logical.)

The earliest entries for the word "cognitive" in the OED take it to mean roughly pertaining "to the action or process of knowing". The first entry, from 1586, shows the word was at one time used in the context of discussions of Platonic theories of knowledge. Most in cognitive science, however, presumably do not believe their field is the study of anything as certain as the knowledge sought by Plato.

Source: Cognitive science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A philosopher would laugh in my face for saying this. But again I am only being extremely rudimentary with this line of thought as I've said things such as "touch this" or "pinch." Something momentarily tangible.

I know as where Max comes from there are quantum aspects to reality and experience that cannot be defined, as well as philosophical structures from ages ago that touch on these topics, and even psychological structures wherein a captive can come to see their captors as friends through mental conditioning or trauma.

But please, give yourself 5 minutes of google-time before throwing around big phrases like "cognitive science."

[Colenzo]

Religion is an excuse for people that are too weak to believe in themselves. My favorite people are Baptists, I myself was a christian as a child, parents forced me into it and I mindlessly went with it. I slowly realized over time that going to church every sunday doesnt make you a good person. We had many foul folk in that church that were snoody stuck up assholes. I stopped going because I couldn't stand the people, I forced my parents to make me stop going. Apparently I learned as a kid that god is totally not into dancing <_>(lol baptists.) I basically went against everything that the church taught me and my parents taught me because I didn't really feel a reason why I should fear something that I cant even prove existed. Also, if there was a god, why would so many people interpret him with so many different religions? Why doesn't god just let us know how it is? This enigmatic figure that millions around the world fear cant even stop by and say hi every once in a while? LOL all those people that say they talk to god need to be checked into a mental hospital. Why can't people just believe in people? The world would be such a better place if people just had faith in one another -.- Religion is what started all this bullshit, this is why we can't help eachother in the ways that we need to. People are starving all over the world and sure people can help them but are they willing to be helped? Fuck no they are too busy having their heads up their asses about people with other ideals to realize that they can be helped. Fucking Jihad this jihad that well listen here mother fucker, nobody told you to live in a god damn desert except for your fucking worthless god. Fuck your "holy land" stupid fuck go move to a place with some grass and go fuck yourself.

/endrant

LOL WALL OF TEXTINGGGGGGGGG

[Kuya]

No, it was a response to your initial statement about your belief that man will always believe in a god or gods, which I disagreed with. Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 = Traditional religion has lost its credibility.

By traditional religion I mean theism, traditional creationism, salvationism etc. I don't know if that's correct, but you get the point.

It follows that if we assume two things, that humans are both logical and irrational creatures, and that complete knowledge is impossible, and by that i mean that any explanation of an origin requires itself another explanation, and so forth, then we can conclude that logical yet empirically unfalsifiable beliefs will continue to exist just as long as human nature remains as such.