I would class it as a rational belief rather than a belief based in blind faith. A lot of people seem to struggle with that distinction though.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Trippy
That's why I make such a stink about even using the word "belief" or "faith" in connection with acceptance of scientific knowledge. Religions have poisoned the word, the way they use it and the baggage the concept carries means it is worse than useless, it is actively harmful when trying to speak about science. This applies especially to what a believer thinks when scientists say something like "I believe Evolution is correct." The scientists "believe" the pronouncements of their own "priests" with names like Einstein or Darwin. To him that means that science is the same kind of belief system as his belief in unevidenced deities, IE a scientists "belief" is no more based on reality than his belief in God, they are equally valid.
Well, they are not equally valid when speaking about what science is concerned with, scientific acceptance(provisional)is a completely different paradigm from what believers mean when they say belief. Scientists don't believe as religionists and many laymen mean the term, and we should reflect that difference and avoid conflation by never using the word when talking to them about what science tells us and the confidence we have in the Scientific Method(among the scientists themselves the word does not carry such a misleading and loaded meaning but we should train ourselves not to use it to avoid confusing non-scientists). Believers have a top down authority structure, truth is handed down from on high and it is infallible and perfect, forever. They see science as being the same way, the sheep just believing what the top scientists tell them is true. The indoctrination into this way of thinking starts in early childhood and it really does kill critical thinking, independent thought being actively(and often violently)suppressed.
Science isn't like that, our knowledge is built from scratch and from the bottom up, even our greatest scientists and their work are constantly being questioned and the lowliest high school student could overturn the most respected scientist's work if he has the goods and can show he is correct. Einstein was a patent clerk and student when he wrote his first paper and he overturned and replaced the work of Newton, one of the most respected scientists in the history of the world. That's somewhat analogous of a Sunday School teenager convincing the world that the Pope was getting it all wrong. I am oversimplifying, but just to illustrate the difference.(I like the current Pope, though I do not believe). Science is in no way a belief system, we should not use the concepts of a belief system, we should use more accurate and less misleading words and phrases to keep that difference distinct.
Grumpy
That's why I make such a stink about even using the word "belief" or "faith" in connection with acceptance of scientific knowledge. Religions have poisoned the word, the way they use it and the baggage the concept carries means it is worse than useless, it is actively harmful when trying to speak about science. This applies especially to what a believer thinks when scientists say something like "I believe Evolution is correct." The scientists "believe" the pronouncements of their own "priests" with names like Einstein or Darwin. To him that means that science is the same kind of belief system as his belief in unevidenced deities, IE a scientists "belief" is no more based on reality than his belief in God, they are equally valid.
Well, they are not equally valid when speaking about what science is concerned with, scientific acceptance(provisional)is a completely different paradigm from what believers mean when they say belief. Scientists don't believe as religionists and many laymen mean the term, and we should reflect that difference and avoid conflation by never using the word when talking to them about what science tells us and the confidence we have in the Scientific Method(among the scientists themselves the word does not carry such a misleading and loaded meaning but we should train ourselves not to use it to avoid confusing non-scientists). Believers have a top down authority structure, truth is handed down from on high and it is infallible and perfect, forever. They see science as being the same way, the sheep just believing what the top scientists tell them is true. The indoctrination into this way of thinking starts in early childhood and it really does kill critical thinking, independent thought being actively(and often violently)suppressed.
Science isn't like that, our knowledge is built from scratch and from the bottom up, even our greatest scientists and their work are constantly being questioned and the lowliest high school student could overturn the most respected scientist's work if he has the goods and can show he is correct. Einstein was a patent clerk and student when he wrote his first paper and he overturned and replaced the work of Newton, one of the most respected scientists in the history of the world. That's somewhat analogous of a Sunday School teenager convincing the world that the Pope was getting it all wrong. I am oversimplifying, but just to illustrate the difference.(I like the current Pope, though I do not believe). Science is in no way a belief system, we should not use the concepts of a belief system, we should use more accurate and less misleading words and phrases to keep that difference distinct.
Grumpy
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Yazata said:
So would I. I'd even say that evolutionary biology is one of the greatest intellectual advances of the last 200 years.
My objection is to the idea, common out there on the street, that 'belief' is something pernicious, that the word 'believe' means something similar to 'baseless attachment to bullshit'.
My own view is a widely held one among philosophers and epistemologists, namely that 'belief' is a mental state in which the believer holds that some proposition is true. Obviously some people do believe in bullshit for no good reason. But equally, others hold impeccably true beliefs for the best of reasons. It's difficult to see how human beings could live their lives, or how scientists could conduct their science, without having any ideas that they think are true.
'Knowledge' is traditionally defined as something like 'justified true belief'. (I believe that formula goes back at least as far as Plato.) In other words, knowledge is a subset of belief, consisting of those beliefs that are both justified by sound and convincing reasons and that are in fact true. (Obviously all kinds of philosophical problems arise regarding real-life justifications for believing that propostions are true, which is the bread-and-butter for epistemologists.)
Evolution might indeed be an admirably rational thing for people to believe in, but that doesn't guarantee that everyone who believes in evolution does so for admirably rational reasons.
Yazata
To scientists that is a deeply flawed view. We accept scientific knowledge provisionally, knowing that it cannot be considered always and forever to be true, that tomorrow everything could be turned on it's head by some discovery or new understanding. Scientists who continued to "believe" in Newton after Einstein exposed his flaws cannot be thought of as doing real science. We have the same problem with the meaning of the word "theory", to the laymen a theory is a guess(which may or may not be based on logic and reason), to the scientist it is anything but a guess, it is an explanation confirmed to the highest level of confidence possible about a subject(it still can't be called "true"). And he will abandon that acceptance given better understanding or evidence. When you believe something you are not able to change a "mental state" of belief, that's why so many theists are so immune to contrary evidence, they instead choose to retain their belief and reject or ignore any evidence that calls that belief into question. We see it all the time on this forum. So a scientist is not "believing" anything if he is doing his job right, he is accepting them as the best understanding we currently have. If you have a "mental state" capable of belief you cannot be a scientist, or at least not a good one.
The word "belief" has lost all meaning if it covers a spectrum from near scientific certainty to whatever that whackadoo screaming on the street corner has rattling around twixt his ears. There is a qualitative and conceptual gulf between them. One of these things is not like the other, in fact they are not even the same type of thing at all, they should not be described by the same word or concept if you want to avoid confusion. Creationists, theists and pseudo-scientists take full advantage of that confusion to drag scientific acceptance down and their own belief system up in an attempt to generate a false equivalence, "If we both "believe" then my beliefs are every bit as valid and true as any scientist's are." is an oft heard refrain(or at least background)here.
Grumpy
To scientists that is a deeply flawed view. We accept scientific knowledge provisionally, knowing that it cannot be considered always and forever to be true, that tomorrow everything could be turned on it's head by some discovery or new understanding. Scientists who continued to "believe" in Newton after Einstein exposed his flaws cannot be thought of as doing real science. We have the same problem with the meaning of the word "theory", to the laymen a theory is a guess(which may or may not be based on logic and reason), to the scientist it is anything but a guess, it is an explanation confirmed to the highest level of confidence possible about a subject(it still can't be called "true"). And he will abandon that acceptance given better understanding or evidence. When you believe something you are not able to change a "mental state" of belief, that's why so many theists are so immune to contrary evidence, they instead choose to retain their belief and reject or ignore any evidence that calls that belief into question. We see it all the time on this forum. So a scientist is not "believing" anything if he is doing his job right, he is accepting them as the best understanding we currently have. If you have a "mental state" capable of belief you cannot be a scientist, or at least not a good one.
The word "belief" has lost all meaning if it covers a spectrum from near scientific certainty to whatever that whackadoo screaming on the street corner has rattling around twixt his ears. There is a qualitative and conceptual gulf between them. One of these things is not like the other, in fact they are not even the same type of thing at all, they should not be described by the same word or concept if you want to avoid confusion. Creationists, theists and pseudo-scientists take full advantage of that confusion to drag scientific acceptance down and their own belief system up in an attempt to generate a false equivalence, "If we both "believe" then my beliefs are every bit as valid and true as any scientist's are." is an oft heard refrain(or at least background)here.
Grumpy
Last edited:
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Belief has not lost it's meaning. Confusion occurs when two words mean the same thing in an unobvious manner. Also when a point reaches an extreme without the revelation of it's opposition. For example I can state belief means something and mention imagination to add confusion, or I could state disbelief is the closest thing to ignorance and right away the air is freed from creationism. Yet the ignorance of "scientists" who refrain from "belief" are doubly ignorant to not see the depth their disbelief renders. An ipso facto belief (nihilism) may provide solitude, purpose, and focus yet it comes with it's own disbelief (ignorance) of any true conscious beginning.
So to ramble, science fills it's disbelief with pockets of imaginative aliens, space ships, tractor beams, ghosts, controversy, big headedness, and even greed if an individual lacks a certain intelligence and therefore becomes a "female dog" to reality while the stupid threaten to outbreed them. That is ignorance plain and simple.
So to ramble, science fills it's disbelief with pockets of imaginative aliens, space ships, tractor beams, ghosts, controversy, big headedness, and even greed if an individual lacks a certain intelligence and therefore becomes a "female dog" to reality while the stupid threaten to outbreed them. That is ignorance plain and simple.
Great stuff!
Except you do not have a theory.....you have an hypothesis.
And if you want to take it to Alternative section, great! Let's hear what you have got...Let's hear what part of established cosmology you are able to falsifiy....Let's hear what observations you have supporting your hypothesis.
Are you prepared to take on line constructive criticism?
Are you prepared to modify your hypothesis?
Do you realize that claiming to be able to logically modify/change current cosmology, that is a result of the unique ability of giants past, plus data from many 'scopes, probes and other distant space craft, that you are unable to access, is going to be rather difficult...or even incredibily unlikely?
Do you realise that we already have three ToE's on this forum?
All claiming the exact same thing?Best of luck anyway.
In reply to Grumpy, re: your #842.
Bravo! Well done, and well stated! I agree in toto with #842. I have read many of your replies, and decided I like your logic and summations. (I don't like illogical "logic")
Also, a brief comment on Albert.
He published his first true work at 16, "On the Investigation of the State of the Ether in a Magnetic Field", published by several popular magazines of that era. This was the summer of 1895,
well before his acceptance at the Zurich Polytechnic. (source; "Einstein...his Life and Universe" by Walter Isaacson)
He had already mastered differential calculus and trigonometry by age 14, all "self-taught" from books. So much for assertions by physics sites detractors that Einstein needed input from
a classroom environment, by professors Einstein had already surpassed! So much for the notion "he couldn't have all that work by himself".
I don't know about you, but when I was 14, my goals in life consisted of riding my 90cc Honda as fast as possible, and trying to convince any appropriate looking girl that removing her
clothes for me was "a really good idea!" Those two items and books were my "stock-in-trade" then.
(Thanks for reading!) and sorry if I'm intruding.
Bravo! Well done, and well stated! I agree in toto with #842. I have read many of your replies, and decided I like your logic and summations. (I don't like illogical "logic")
Also, a brief comment on Albert.
He published his first true work at 16, "On the Investigation of the State of the Ether in a Magnetic Field", published by several popular magazines of that era. This was the summer of 1895,
well before his acceptance at the Zurich Polytechnic. (source; "Einstein...his Life and Universe" by Walter Isaacson)
He had already mastered differential calculus and trigonometry by age 14, all "self-taught" from books. So much for assertions by physics sites detractors that Einstein needed input from
a classroom environment, by professors Einstein had already surpassed! So much for the notion "he couldn't have all that work by himself".
I don't know about you, but when I was 14, my goals in life consisted of riding my 90cc Honda as fast as possible, and trying to convince any appropriate looking girl that removing her
clothes for me was "a really good idea!" Those two items and books were my "stock-in-trade" then.
(Thanks for reading!) and sorry if I'm intruding.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
I can't falsify a thing. Tho I might be able to update interpretations.
Experiment:
Control: iron
Variable: vast nothingness
Conditions of experiment: 118 elements placed within control group.
Are you prepared to take on line constructive criticism?
Are you prepared to modify your hypothesis?
Do you realize that claiming to be able to logically modify/change current cosmology, that is a result of the unique ability of giants past, plus data from many 'scopes, probes and other distant space craft, that you are unable to access, is going to be rather difficult...or even incredibily unlikely?
Do you realise that we already have three ToE's on this forum?
Best of luck anyway.
Yawn!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It almost reminds me of "I Robot"
Now imagine a medical surgical robot having to choose berween cutting the mother to remove the life threatening fetus or save the fetus at all cost threatening the life of the mother. I would incumbent upon the physician to commit suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
Now imagine a medical surgical robot having to choose berween cutting the mother to remove the life threatening fetus or save the fetus at all cost threatening the life of the mother. I would incumbent upon the physician to commit suicide.
So once again, as expected, you have nothing of any substance?
Nothing at all wrong with a appeal to authority....We all do it at times and always have done it. That's how we learn.
Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that....far far better then being swallowed by some self indulgent delusions of grandeur blindness.
So do you have an alternative hypothesis to debate? In the appropriate thread of course!
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
If you learn by scrutiny of authority... You have to surpass me before you reach God.
That is why an appeal to authority counts for a warning or banishment on this forum.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Then that's a failure of science education, nothing else. There's a number of words used by science that are commonly misused. Theory is another.
Not only is it possible to have ration belief, but it's also possible to have rational faith.
That's one way of addressing the problem, the alternative is to reclaim the word through education.
I have no issues discussing belief or faith in the context of rational belief or rational faith. If somebody want to be stupid about it, then let them. I will simply attempt to educate them by pointing them to a dictionary. Whether they take it on board or continue bing stupid about it is up to them
I understand your point, I'm not sure I agree with it.Science isn't like that, our knowledge is built from scratch and from the bottom up, even our greatest scientists and their work are constantly being questioned and the lowliest high school student could overturn the most respected scientist's work if he has the goods and can show he is correct. Einstein was a patent clerk and student when he wrote his first paper and he overturned and replaced the work of Newton, one of the most respected scientists in the history of the world. That's somewhat analogous of a Sunday School teenager convincing the world that the Pope was getting it all wrong. I am oversimplifying, but just to illustrate the difference.(I like the current Pope, though I do not believe). Science is in no way a belief system, we should not use the concepts of a belief system, we should use more accurate and less misleading words and phrases to keep that difference distinct.
Grumpy
Sadly, that is one of the definitions of belief, and the one it has become most associated with. The only thing that will correct that is education.
My own view is a widely held one among philosophers and epistemologists, namely that 'belief' is a mental state in which the believer holds that some proposition is true. Obviously some people do believe in bullshit for no good reason. But equally, others hold impeccably true beliefs for the best of reasons. It's difficult to see how human beings could live their lives, or how scientists could conduct their science, without having any ideas that they think are true.
'Knowledge' is traditionally defined as something like 'justified true belief'. (I believe that formula goes back at least as far as Plato.) In other words, knowledge is a subset of belief, consisting of those beliefs that are both justified by sound and convincing reasons and that are in fact true. (Obviously all kinds of philosophical problems arise regarding real-life justifications for believing that propostions are true, which is the bread-and-butter for epistemologists.)[/quote]
I think, for the most part, I agree with what you're saying here.
Modern evolutionary theory is based on a statistical empirical approach, with this approach not infallible. As an example, large drug companies will hire the best people and spend lots of money conforming their drug to this science approach, so they can get new medications into the lucrative marketplace. They go by the book, with the greatest care, and have peer review.
In spite of the best of intent and full conformity to this approach of science, many drugs turn out much more dangerous than the statistical empirical approach implied. This is where the lawyers come in.
These bad drugs prove that within a statistical empirical approach is a percent of inherent bad theory, that although expertly conforming to the approach, was not real in the sense of truth. In the case of bad drugs, we will have sick and dead people as a smoking gun. But what about innocuous theory, that uses this very same approach, where there is no obvious body count? It will be still be bad theory, but without bodies, how would we know that theory is dangerous to truth? The sickness may turn up in another way such as dogmatic emotional defensiveness as a side effect?
The main reason for the inherent percent of defects in the empirical statistical method, is black box science can't see all the variables. If modern evolution leaves out water, this does not matter to the black box since it will be blended.
One statistical empirical study will conclude, X is good for you. A year later, the next study, using a same by the book approach, will say the opposite. Science is supposed to settle things, but this demonstrates there are also cases where this approach will create free market fads, not settled science. If we combine this percent fad effect, with the liability issue of a drug company, a fad can become a liability.
One may need to employ tactics, not needed in rational science, to cover up fad liability; censorship. This may explain why modern evolution, which is a product of this method, is the only area of science that needs laws to help it via censorship in schools. It would be like a drug company, who followed the rules, only to find they have a problem. They will need political science to prop it up to maintain market share, and prevent any liability.
Again I am not saying scientist who use this technique are doing it wrong, just the method itself has a percent of bad output, that is not always easy to see, until symptoms appears, which in the case of drugs is sickness of mind and/or body.
In spite of the best of intent and full conformity to this approach of science, many drugs turn out much more dangerous than the statistical empirical approach implied. This is where the lawyers come in.
These bad drugs prove that within a statistical empirical approach is a percent of inherent bad theory, that although expertly conforming to the approach, was not real in the sense of truth. In the case of bad drugs, we will have sick and dead people as a smoking gun. But what about innocuous theory, that uses this very same approach, where there is no obvious body count? It will be still be bad theory, but without bodies, how would we know that theory is dangerous to truth? The sickness may turn up in another way such as dogmatic emotional defensiveness as a side effect?
The main reason for the inherent percent of defects in the empirical statistical method, is black box science can't see all the variables. If modern evolution leaves out water, this does not matter to the black box since it will be blended.
One statistical empirical study will conclude, X is good for you. A year later, the next study, using a same by the book approach, will say the opposite. Science is supposed to settle things, but this demonstrates there are also cases where this approach will create free market fads, not settled science. If we combine this percent fad effect, with the liability issue of a drug company, a fad can become a liability.
One may need to employ tactics, not needed in rational science, to cover up fad liability; censorship. This may explain why modern evolution, which is a product of this method, is the only area of science that needs laws to help it via censorship in schools. It would be like a drug company, who followed the rules, only to find they have a problem. They will need political science to prop it up to maintain market share, and prevent any liability.
Again I am not saying scientist who use this technique are doing it wrong, just the method itself has a percent of bad output, that is not always easy to see, until symptoms appears, which in the case of drugs is sickness of mind and/or body.
No it isn't.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
It was short lived and some time around when Paddoboy got banned multiple times then decided to make this thread.
Trippy
Yes, if one is not talking about knowledge. We believe many things that we cannot say we know. I believe my dog loves me, it's a fairly rational belief based on her behavior, but I don't know that it is a fact. I have a rational, evidenced faith that my dog loves and cares for me.
But knowledge of things means faith in them is not a requirement. With the caveats of there being no certainty and the limits of what knowing means(Matrix, perception and whatnot), those things are known, not believed. In addition, knowing the rigor and self checking of the Scientific Method(as imperfect as it can be in the short term)I have confidence in the accumulated knowledge we have, but none of it do I hold as a belief and any part of it I would abandon overnight should evidence falsifying it be confirmed(again, by the Scientific Method), that includes Relativity. You simply cannot abandon beliefs, they aren't necessarily based on facts and logic. Many a battered wife will drop charges(again)in the belief that he can change. Belief is a mental state, knowing is provisionally accepting as true. They simply aren't the same thing, they should not be described by the same words. In my posts everywhere on this forum, I have designated the things I believe might be true from the things I know to be true. Human's have beliefs, sometimes they are rational beliefs, but scientific knowledge(in most fields)is a different thing, the result of a non-human process that filters belief out by adversarial agency. The whole process is attempting to DISPROVE the claims of scientists, stripping their claims down to what they can actually show, not what they believe they can show. If a theory survives that process we can dispense with belief and accept it as knowledge(until it is falsified by someone else, that is). If you distill a batch of wine, you can still call it wine if you want to, but I will call it cognac and would recommend that you not confuse the two.
Cheers!
Grumpy
Yes, if one is not talking about knowledge. We believe many things that we cannot say we know. I believe my dog loves me, it's a fairly rational belief based on her behavior, but I don't know that it is a fact. I have a rational, evidenced faith that my dog loves and cares for me.
But knowledge of things means faith in them is not a requirement. With the caveats of there being no certainty and the limits of what knowing means(Matrix, perception and whatnot), those things are known, not believed. In addition, knowing the rigor and self checking of the Scientific Method(as imperfect as it can be in the short term)I have confidence in the accumulated knowledge we have, but none of it do I hold as a belief and any part of it I would abandon overnight should evidence falsifying it be confirmed(again, by the Scientific Method), that includes Relativity. You simply cannot abandon beliefs, they aren't necessarily based on facts and logic. Many a battered wife will drop charges(again)in the belief that he can change. Belief is a mental state, knowing is provisionally accepting as true. They simply aren't the same thing, they should not be described by the same words. In my posts everywhere on this forum, I have designated the things I believe might be true from the things I know to be true. Human's have beliefs, sometimes they are rational beliefs, but scientific knowledge(in most fields)is a different thing, the result of a non-human process that filters belief out by adversarial agency. The whole process is attempting to DISPROVE the claims of scientists, stripping their claims down to what they can actually show, not what they believe they can show. If a theory survives that process we can dispense with belief and accept it as knowledge(until it is falsified by someone else, that is). If you distill a batch of wine, you can still call it wine if you want to, but I will call it cognac and would recommend that you not confuse the two.
Cheers!
Grumpy