Faith and Reason.

[Neosutra]

What Kaylia?

[Kaylia]

What Kaylia?

Neosutra: We prove them true


How do you prove that your observations are true?

[Neosutra]

Neosutra: We prove them true


How do you prove that your observation is true?

Establish models based on our observations.
Continue testing models until model fails, Replace model with better model.
???
Profit.

[Kaylia]

Establish models based on our observations.
Continue testing models until model fails, Replace model with better model.
???
Profit.

It doesn't prove anything true. You just make mathematical implication when you do this.

How do you prove them true?

[Kuya]

Establish models based on our observations.
Continue testing models until model fails, Replace model with better model.
???
Profit.

This is the assumption. You assume that your observation is reliable. There's nothing wrong with assuming it true, but you do.

[Kuya]

"I think therefore I am" is philosophical nonsense. You cannot define existence by the ability to think, otherwise a tree stump wouldn't exist and we know very well that they do.

Cogito ergo sum is not saying that only that which thinks exists, it says that you have proof that you exist because you contemplate your existence.

[Rockstaru]

Implicit in the definition of faith is that there is no real proof for what one is claiming; if there were proof in the traditional sense of the word, there would be no need for faith. The only real "proofs" of any belief about the supernatural, then, are purely anecdotal--personal experiences that are entirely subjective and are interpreted, with varying degrees of strength, as evidence that a set of beliefs is true. (I think that atheists make the same mistake as theists in that both groups make a claim that cannot possibly be proven empirically.) Middle-of-the-road agnosticism, as was pointed out in the very first page of the thread, is the only position that makes logical sense, because it's the only one that doesn't make a claim. Call it a cop out if you want.

[Kaylia]

Neosutra, you can take as long as you want to answer my last post, you will never be able to prove that an "implication" is true, unless you can prove that the first term is "true". Scientific methods allow you to change B, but it doesn't say anything about A.

A -> B (true -> true or false -> false)
Observation -> model

It's what you get from the method. It's a direct relation, and there is nothing more to it. You can dance around the question, you can attack me again, but it doesn't change that fact.

If you make the statement "We prove them true" and "we don't need any beliefs (axioms)" in the same argument, I seriously want you to make a complete reasoning to explain us why you can talk about "truth".

Since the beginning of this discussion, your only argument is "BLABLABLA it's verified BLABLABLA", but the only thing that is verified is the implication, not the "truth" of this statement.


So...can I say checkmate?

[_chuchu]

YouTube - Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice

[Eratosthenes]

I don't even understand what Kaylia's trying to argue. Is science dogmatic? No, it doesn't assert truths. It advances by making assumptions, yes, but they're always tested for reliability. Science goes: If X is true, then we should expect Y and not Z. If Z, then X is false. It must be potentially falsifiable in order to qualify as science, otherwise it's Russel's teapot.

[Kuya]

Kaylia is arguing with Neosutra who is saying that there is no assumption, that the methods used are true. Neosutra assumes that the products of science being proved true is the same as proving the methodologies and epistemologies of science true, and you are right, they are justified as true indirectly by the products they produce and how accurate they seem to be.

[Kaylia]

Scientific method for dummies.


A= Every observations
B= Model

Construction of a theory
Any set of obversation imply a solution
A -> B

Our goal
The model we are aiming for is one that can could explain every observations
A <--> B
Basically, every observations imply this model, and the model imply every observations

Discarding model
If B --> ¬ A, our model isn't the one we are looking for since it can't explain every observations. It can sometime be used to estimate a particular set of observations (subset of A), but it's not a complete model anymore.


If anyone who is arguing against me disagree with this, please, post your definition of the scientific methods in a way that doesn't raise interpretation issue.

I don't even understand what Kaylia's trying to argue. Is science dogmatic? No, it doesn't assert truths. It advances by making assumptions, yes, but they're always tested for reliability. Science goes: If X is true, then we should expect Y and not Z. If Z, then X is false. It must be potentially falsifiable in order to qualify as science, otherwise it's Russel's teapot.

I don't know, ask Neosutra, he say he can prove them true.

An observation X can imply as many models (Y,Z..etc) as you want. However, if you want X->Y and Y -> X, there is only one possible model (in this case, Y should be a mathematical equivalent to Z)

[Belkin]

Scientific method is boring.

For some people (through first hand observation), religion is a stepping stone. They use it as a crutch (not saying that is a bad thing necessarily) to meet their psychological needs. Whether it be the strength to quit drugs and alcohol or just help them make it by a stressful week at college or work. From my experiences with different levels of faith (Friends and family), they aren't about all the "DO THIS OR YOU WILL GO TO HELL". I've noticed they all use religion as stated above, as a crutch to help them through life.

As for me, I feel like I am too smart to accept such outlandish stories of an omniscient being who demands our obedience. I have many questions I can slam religious zealots with. Some of them I already have asked and the answer is always the same - "You just have to believe". Being a person of reason and logic, this is like spitting in my face. Give me SOMETHING tangible. Blind faith sickens me.

However, I have seen my fair share of miracles and freak consequences in my life. Enough to make me keep an open mind about the whole subject. I still question and refute nearly everything that is said in Bible, but I'm slowly leaning toward the idea that there is some sort of guiding force in life.

[Melchiah]

Wait, so Kaylia's entire argument is on Neo's choice of words and not his actual position?

Semantics, etc. Wasted time.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Wait, so Kaylia's entire argument is on Neo's choice of words and not his actual position?

Semantics, etc. Wasted time.

Either that or Kaylia's getting all Matrix on us.

According to Kaylia if I put my hand on the wall I have to believe in physics so my hand won't pass through it, or at some point an assumption or belief has to be made for me to realize the physics that the wall will go all Gandolf on me and tell me I shall not pass.

[kuronosan]

I am so glad I stepped out of the majority of this discussion. As interesting as it was I was beginning to feel like a stone-thrower at a gun convention.

[0ni0n]

Either that or Kaylia's getting all Matrix on us.

According to Kaylia if I put my hand on the wall I have to believe in physics so my hand won't pass through it, or at some point an assumption or belief has to be made for me to realize the physics that the wall will go all Gandolf on me and tell me I shall not pass.

Pretty much. Kaylia is saying that we would require faith and belief in everything with which we interact in order to construct our own perception of reality. Without faith and belief, there's no reality. Since our daily life is perceived real, faith and belief are obviously, inevitably required and possibly inherent.

It's a tautology and a logical fallacy.

I can't help but agreeing with Neotra that it's a waste of time responding to Kaylia's posts. He's either intellectually dishonest by intentionally obscuring the distinction between the belief in proven science theories and the belief in imagined deities, or incapable of grasping the difference between those two.

[Kuya]

Are people here thinking that Kaylia brought that up to compare science and religion or that he brought it up to argue with someone who said that you assumed nothing in science?

Kaylia statement:

You have to believe there is a reality that can be explained (consciously or not) if you want to do sciences . There is nothing wrong with this affirmation of faith, since it's at the base of scientific method.

Neosutra's rejection:

No. No form of faith is at the base of the scientific method. I dont have "faith" that I will find the answers to the problems Im trying to solve, I simply want to solve them, and am working towards that goal. I have no idea if I will ever solve it, but I still try. There isnt some blind "faith" that I will someday find that answer.

Since our daily life is perceived real, faith and belief are obviously, inevitably required and possibly inherent.

You are saying it is obvious, Neosutra is denying the obvious.

[0ni0n]

Are people here thinking that Kaylia brought that up to compare science and religion or that he brought it up to argue with someone who said that you assumed nothing in science?

Kaylia statement:


Neosutra's rejection:


You are saying it is obvious, Neosutra is denying the obvious.

Neosutra disagreeing is because there's a difference between the faith and belief in 1+1=2 and the faith and belief in unicorns. They may seem the same but they aren't. Kaylia is grossly simplifying the two and his position is a circular argument.

[Kuya]

Neosutra disagreeing is because there's a difference between the faith and belief in 1+1=2 and the faith and belief in unicorns. They may seem the same but they aren't. Kaylia is grossly simplifying the two and his position is a circular argument.

I think what he's saying is fairly absolute. He said:

No form of faith is at the base of the scientific method.

He did not say that they were different, though he can post right now and correct himself.

1+2=3 can be demonstrated, a unicorn cannot. The former can be verified via empiricism, the latter, seemingly, cannot. There are two assumptions here, one is that the numbers themselves and what they represent cannot be questioned, they are self evident, which is in on itself tautological, but the assumption must be made, and second, that if something is not empirical, then it does not exist. In other words, that because you haven't seen a unicorn, it can't exist, even though there's a possibility that you just haven't seen it. That argument is logical and valid, but it is worth nothing to someone who values empiricism.


edit: What i'm saying here is, the difference is in the epistemology, and that epistemology is empiricism. It assumes, and if someone holds empiricism to be true, they must believe that only that which can be observed is true. Now how does this relate to this entire debate? That rationally, a god can exist, but empirically he cannot because he cannot be observed. The issue is epistemology.