Faith and Reason.

[Kaylia]

First off, Scientifical. Really...

I've only been reading through this thread the last couple pages. But from what I've gathered your argument is that the system that we use to quantify the wold around us could be flawed. You're saying, what justifies scientifical evidence over non-scientific observations. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not all observations are scientific, not all evidence is in science is empirical. A great deal of hypotheses can't even be qualified by empirical evidence. That is, however, why the scientific process has a self correcting element to it. After a hypothesis can be locally verified by experiments, and the results point to no other logical conclusion, the hypothesis is subjected to the process of peer review. It can be said in a single sentence, "subjected to peer review". But that sentence represents in many cases, years and years of trial, rewriting, verification, resubmission after resubmission. It's not something to be taken lightly. People, who in most cases have may more years of expertise in the topic of study, pick through your paper with a fine tooth comb. They try and recreate the results, compare them with the current known model and look for inconsistencies.

Science has been described a a series of paradigms, each one followed by a succession of people merely polishing the details of the last great paradigm shift. Most of science is weeding out the flaws in ideas, and keeping only the best, the ones that most accuratly describe the known natural world. You can argue that the system could be flawed, and that what knowledge gained through the scientific process would also be flawed. You might even be right. However, the system we currently have has one thing that faith, religion, belief, god, angels, the whole of the supernatural realm has yet to provide. Results.

The times of mans short history that have always been the darkest are the ones when religion doctrine was the basis for making decisions. The scientific process, even if it's not perfect, works very well. The results allow us the comforts and control that we posses today. Any argument you could make about the scientific process would be drenched in irony if conveyed via a computer. It's hard to consider a medium today that wasn't developed thanks to an advancement of scientific knowledge. Studying the bible did not prevent disease, or feed us, shelter us or warm us. Prayer did not build cities, nor convey knowledge. Religion has, in most cases impeded the results of scientific and moral advancements. At the end of the day it's no better then any other fairy tale and it's something, like fairy tales, we should have long since outgrown.

Oookk

First, you quoted a post from the semantic argument I had with Liniel. There isn't more to t but a bunch of definitions. I said "empirical evidence" implies the use the scientific method, Liniel said it does not. I gathered a bunch of definition to indicate my point.


Second, you completly missed the point I'm arguing about over the last 10 pages. To do sciences you need a certain belief that the world can be explained. It's not something that come naturally in a "reasoning", it's not something that can be proven with sciences, it's something we accept because it feel right.

Not all observation are scientific, but in sciences, every observation must be scientific. How do you justifify the validity of non-scientific evidences when they aren't included in your method that is weeding out bad ideas.

[thatwasnifty]

To do sciences you need a certain belief that the world can be explained. It's not something that come naturally in a "reasoning", it's not something that can be proven with sciences, it's something we accept because it feel right.

But it's not a belief! We have past experiences that demonstrate to us that the world can be explained, and we base our actions on those experiences. That's reason, not belief.

[Neosutra]

I dont "believe" the world can be explained, I observe that we are able to explain it via the models we have constructed thus far, and extrapolate that more advanced models may be able to explain the greater questions we have yet to answer.

Had we as a species arrived at no models of our physical systems before I was born, I would probably not believe there was the capability to do such a thing.

edit: god damnit thatwasnifty posts too fast Q.Q

[kareface]

First, you quoted a post from the semantic argument I had with Liniel. There isn't more to t but a bunch of definitions. I said "empirical evidence" implies the use the scientific method, Liniel said it does not. I gathered a bunch of definition to indicate my point.

No, it can imply, but does not necessarily.

Second, you completly missed the point I'm arguing about over the last 10 pages. To do sciences you need a certain belief that the world can be explained. It's not something that come naturally in a "reasoning", it's not something that can be proven with sciences, it's something we accept because it feel right.

Something that can't be proven =/= a belief. The idea that the world can be explained is not a belief. You like throwing that word around to justify the religious position. It's not a belief that the world can be explained. We have proven that aspects of the world can be explained. Math alone defines a great deal of the world with nothing but numbers. Because there is observable evidence that aspects of the world can be explained, it is not a belief. Theories (outside the realm of mathmatics) can _not_ be proven. That however does not mean they are taken on faith, or they are some form of belief.

Not all observation are scientific, but in sciences, every observation must be scientific. How do you justifify the validity of non-scientific evidences when they aren't included in your method that is weeding out bad ideas

This is FALSE. When formulating a hypothesis, observations do NOT REQUIRE a scientific method. Only the results of the tests do. Otherwise it would be impossible to create many hypothesizes.

[Kaylia]

Even if Kaylia is right and this is what people are arguing, then the parallel is still wrong. Science's power, reliability, and superiority to other methods of observation and discovery come from its ability to make accurate and precise predictions and to correct itself when it's wrong. Science is validated internally and externally. Faith and religion are neither accurate nor precise, ergo are useless.

If you accept reality as it is, then yes, there is no argument that sciences doesn't make accurate result.

The importance you attribute to science however come from the faith in your belief that this reality is the only truth. Otherwise, those predictions you're doing aren't "better" than anything. Many people in this thread uses word like "reason" and "rational thinking" to express their hate for religion, but the only difference between both side is the uses of different axiom.

Faith: Degree of confidence in a belief (or set of beliefs)
Belief: Psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true

Scientifical is badly worded, Scientific is the word you're searching for.

God forbid me to write typoe at 5am. My english is far from perfect, and this one slipped.

[thatwasnifty]

I think you're the only person in this entire thread using those definitions.

[Eratosthenes]

This is FALSE. When formulating a hypothesis, observations do NOT REQUIRE a scientific method. Only the results of the tests do. Otherwise it would be impossible to create many hypothesizes.

But you DO have to start with observations that are objective. Repeatability is a reliable method for determining objectivity. If somebody else can make the same observation by doing what you did, it passes. Divine revelation doesn't count.

By the way, did anyone ever notice in their stories that prophets almost always receive their visions and insights when they're alone?

[kareface]

If you accept reality as it is, then yes, there is no argument that sciences doesn't make accurate result.

The importance you attribute to science however come from the faith in your belief that this reality is the only truth. Otherwise, those predictions you're doing aren't "better" than anything. Many people in this thread uses word like "reason" and "rational thinking" to express their hate for religion, but the only difference between both side is the uses of different axiom.

Faith: Degree of confidence in a belief (or set of beliefs)
Belief: Psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true



God forbid me to write typoe at 5am. My english is far from perfect, and this one slipped.

You fell right back on the fucking martix argument. You managed to justify my post yet again. YES, WE CAN ALL FUCKING IMAGINE THAT REALITY COULD BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO PRECIEVE. HOWEVER, WE CAN ONLY TEST USING THE SENSE WE'VE MANAGE TO EVOLVE. SO TRYING TO SAY REALITY IS DIFFRENT THEN WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO PRECIVE IS POINTLESS. You fall back on that arguemng when you have nothing better to use. It's a pointless avnue, and really just pathedic.

STOP USING THE TERM AXIOM TO DESCRIBE RELIGION. Axiom is a logical statement. Point out some aspect of religion that is logical, I dare you.

Beliefs don't require evidence, and don't represent knowloedge. That is why a belief is not an axiom, nor assumtion, even a guess.

[kareface]

But you DO have to start with observations that are objective. Repeatability is a reliable method for determining objectivity. If somebody else can make the same observation by doing what you did, it passes. Divine revelation doesn't count.

By the way, did anyone ever notice in their stories that prophets almost always receive their visions and insights when they're alone?

No you don't. The formulation of the hypothesis can be based on subjective observations. Just as long as the formulated hypothesis can be tested using natural means.

[meson]

That doesnt really address the question at all meson. (@ the "in god we trust" comment).

Cant tell if you are being serious or not Q.Q

A little from column A, a little from column B. My contention is that faith is an adapted trait and gives us our willingness to act without certainty of outcome. Reason is also an adapted trait and provides a check to that willingness. Faith without reason leads to non-sensical dogmas.

If you want to give faith the narrow definition of believing that non-testable phenomenon occurred thousands of years ago, that's fine. But don't expect too many posters to take the opposing position. I'm trying to give faith a broader definition.

[kareface]

A little from column A, a little from column B. My contention is that faith is an adapted trait and gives us our willingness to act without certainty of outcome. Reason is also an adapted trait and provides a check to that willingness. Faith without reason leads to non-sensical dogmas.

If you want to give faith the narrow definition of believing that non-testable phenomenon occurred thousands of years ago, that's fine. But don't expect too many posters to take the opposing position. I'm trying to give faith a broader definition.

Belief is simple, "I believe something is true". It has no relation to evidence or knowledge. That's why when we "believe" something is true based on observation, it's called something that isn't belief. You can try and give it an broader definition, it's already really broad. But the problem is, when you try and conflate the word belief with logic based statements, you then end up saying, "LOOK DAT SHIOOCE AND MY GOD R D SAME". When your definition of faith is based on nothing but a factless desire for something to be true, and ours is based on logic, evidence and experience.

That's the real problem. If you want to expand the definition, you can't then turn around and use it to draw parallels between religion and science because of a personal interpretation of the word.

[Eratosthenes]

No you don't. The formulation of the hypothesis can be based on subjective observations. Just as long as the formulated hypothesis can be tested using natural means.

Can you give me an example?

[Kaylia]

Kareface:
-Something that is peer reviewed is more likely to be true because the scientific method is valid.

-The scientific method is valid because it consistently produces accurate results that can be validated by anyone.

I'm just gonna address those two things.

"More likely" imply probability. In the word of logic, it's either "true" or "false". I understand what you mean, but you can only say that when you are working under certain beliefs. In this case, you understand that the world can be observed and because of this, you are convinced that the pattern you observed can be repeated, and you're closing in on a explanation.

For the 2nd point, it's the same thing I adressed in my previous post (scroll up if you didnt read it, my answer would be the same).

In the end, you would still be spinning in circle until you set an axiom somewhere.

This is false. A axiom represents a starting point of a self retaining truth. I exist to some degree because if I did not, I would be unable to make the claim of my existence. It's not a belief of my existence, but self evident. Where as, "I exist, because god created me" is not self evident, as existence may not require god. Something must always be true.

Descarte argument? It's philosophy, not science.

Not to mention the axiom in this line of thinking is the "I". You assume the existance of a you that is thinking.

False! An axiom is by definition a logical assertion

Because it's nature is "true". It's not obtained through logic.

I like Kaylia as much as the next person (love talking science with him) , but get off his dick already. Besides logging on and co-signing you did nothing and added nothing to this thread.

Thanks, I didn't want to say it.

Post like his really don't help me (assuming he wasnt super sarcastic in the first place). It's just a big barrel of oil tossed in a thread that is already in fire.

[kareface]

Can you give me an example?

Most quantum theory is something that can not be quantified via. objective observations. But new hypothesize are still drawn up, and it's still expanded upon.

[Kaylia]

No, it can imply, but does not necessarily.

The definition beg to differ. What else can I say.

Something that can't be proven =/= a belief. The idea that the world can be explained is not a belief. You like throwing that word around to justify the religious position. It's not a belief that the world can be explained. We have proven that aspects of the world can be explained. Math alone defines a great deal of the world with nothing but numbers. Because there is observable evidence that aspects of the world can be explained, it is not a belief. Theories (outside the realm of mathmatics) can _not_ be proven. That however does not mean they are taken on faith, or they are some form of belief.

Something that can't be proven and assumed to be true IS a belief.

If you want to make a distinction between belief, go for it, but it will only validate my point even more than you need another belief to differentiate your belief.

This is FALSE. When formulating a hypothesis, observations do NOT REQUIRE a scientific method. Only the results of the tests do. Otherwise it would be impossible to create many hypothesizes.

Hypothesis don't pop out of nowhere, they are based on previous observation obtained through the scientific methods.

[Tristam]

If you accept reality as it is, then yes, there is no argument that sciences doesn't make accurate result.

The importance you attribute to science however come from the faith in your belief that this reality is the only truth. Otherwise, those predictions you're doing aren't "better" than anything. Many people in this thread uses word like "reason" and "rational thinking" to express their hate for religion, but the only difference between both side is the uses of different axiom.

Faith: Degree of confidence in a belief (or set of beliefs)
Belief: Psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true



God forbid me to write typoe at 5am. My english is far from perfect, and this one slipped.

So can we all just (lol, I can't believe I'm typing this) assume that reality and experiences are real and are an accurate description of what actually happens and start talking about something else? This thread has officially hopped on the crazy train.

Unless we want to keep talking about unreal explanations of reality or somesuch ivory-tower nonsense.

[Kaylia]

I think you're the only person in this entire thread using those definitions.

Maybe I am the only one who uses those definition here, but wikipedia, and dictionary uses those as well.

It's not my fault if most people use definition wrongly, and obtain weird result from their argument after. If you want to talk about logic and reason, you have to use the tools that mathematics give us and stick to them the whole time.

So can we all just (lol, I can't believe I'm typing this) assume that reality and experiences are real and are an accurate description of what actually happens and start talking about something else? This thread has officially hopped on the crazy train.

Unless we want to keep talking about unreal explanations of reality or somesuch ivory-tower nonsense.

I don't mind, I already said it's what I believed in before Neosutra jumped on my post, only to correct himself a few page later

[Tristam]

[QUOTE=Kaylia;2543754 You assume the existance of a you that is thinking.

[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure we're all willing to make that fantastic leap.

[Kaylia]

Pretty sure we're all willing to make that fantastic leap.

I thought we were, but apparently, this quote created enough disagreement to drag this debate for over 10 pages.

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.

I personally thought it would have been ignored because it was stating the obvious, but apparently not.

[kareface]

I'm just gonna address those two things.

"More likely" imply probability. In the word of logic, it's either "true" or "false". I understand what you mean, but you can only say that when you are working under certain beliefs. In this case, you understand that the world can be observed and because of this, you are convinced that the pattern you observed can be repeated, and you're closing in on a explanation.

This is back to the neo argument. Yes, certainty is something that only exists in the realm of mathematics. Everyone knows this. If I'm to represent the scientific process accurately, I will never use absolutes. If you want to use the super generic reference of belief, then yes, everything that is held to be true is a belief. But some beliefs are also based on evidence, and observation, so I'm not going to call them beliefs, because then you'll conflate the term. There are no religious laws, no god theories, no angle hypothesizes, because they are super-natural. As in, beyond the realm of nature. As we can only test things that exist in the realm of nature, then there is no way to establish their truth. The same can be said for the Easter bunny and santa clause.

In the end, you would still be spinning in circle until you set an axiom somewhere.

Yes, that's why they exist. But the reason why they are logical is because they are so simple that they are their own explication. Think of it like this. What are you made of, cells, they are made of many organic materials, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of Bosons, electrons, muons, up and down quarks, ect. ect., now imaging there is a single element that composes all of the subatomic partials. We can define all of the larger elements by it's lower counterparts. But you can only define the sub-sub-atomic partial as itself. The lowest and simplest state. That acts as a logical starting point, a self defining material. As it can't be defined any other way. This is the bases for mathematical & physical axioms. In that regard it's logic.

You assume the existance of a you that is thinking.

Wow, you blew my mind for like the 8th time now... Dude, you seriously sound like 1/2 of the jackasses in every first year phillo course. We HAVE to draw that reasoning, and you keep relying on that argument because none of your other ones have any basis.

Again, you use the wrong terms. Self existence is an axiom, because it's the simplest state of understanding and it's self defining.

The definition beg to differ. What else can I say.

Observation is either an activity of a living being (such as a human), consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific

OR YOU FUCKING DEFINED IT FOR YOURSELF.

The argument of, "we don't know the reality we exist in". The dumbest thing I've ever run across. Why on earth do you keep rehashing it.