Do We Need Faith?

[QuestioningMind]

If someone has what they call inner evidence that contradicts this outer evidence, it must be discarded. The inner evidence must be consistent with outer evidence. The Baha'i Faith says that any belief that contradicts science must be rejected. The "creationists" have come up with bogus "evidence" that starts with a literal belief in Genesis. They use that understanding, then look for holes in evolution to justify their belief. You can't assume that your "inner conviction" is true, and use that to distort the scientific picture.

You can't assume that your "inner conviction" is true, and use that to distort the scientific picture.

People do it all the time! If you give credence to the idea that people can possess 'inner evidence' - truth that only they can ascertain - you open the door for people to believe absolutely anything, regardless of the contradictions. FAR better to only deal with the 'outer evidence' that EVERYONE has to accept. Then we never have to deal with 'MY inner evidence is better that YOUR inner evidence'

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe that if we discussed the facts, theory, and knowns that we'd find a great deal of what is called "science" today would simply collapse because it is based on erroneous and even nonsensical assumptions. Across the board we employ assumptions that are simply wrong and definitions that don't differentiate between entirely different referents. Our paradigms are flawed because we don't understand the nature of reality (logic) or the nature of life (consciousness).

This is an example of what I have been calling overbroad and unsupported claims. What part of science would collapse and why? Which assumptions do you consider erroneous, why do you think so, and what examples can you provide of undesirable results of that. Please be specific and refer to specific ramifications that one can agree or disagree are the result specific faulty assumptions. If you can't and don't, there's nothing to discuss. These are just your unsupported opinions that don't actually refer to anything specific. You say that you'd like to discuss some of these things, but how? Do you see that I can neither agree nor disagree with you?

There can be no Understanding without Knowledge and there can be no Creation without Understanding. Knowledge is the foundation of Creation.

Here's another one. How can one either agree or disagree with this? What's there to discuss? I don't know what YOU mean by any of those words. I don't recognize anything in my life that you might mean whatever those words mean to you.

You wrote, "I believe many of these problems could be ameliorated if people would just try to take me literally and parse every sentence so it makes sense. If it won't make sense ask for an elaboration or attack what you parse." You want others to try to "parse" the meaning of your words, by which I think you mean to assign them meaning that make the sentences into something they would agree with, but that's unrealistic. I'd just be projecting my thoughts onto your words.

So here we are; discussing faith. This includes the faith of some in Peers and others in religion and how most believe there are only one or two types of faith while an infinite number is possible.

To me, all unjustified belief can be grouped together as faith, and all of it is dealt with the same way by the critical thinker, who only accepts demonstrably correct beliefs as knowledge. Unjustified belief characterizes religion, but not empiricism. The two should not be confused, which happens when one uses two different words as if they were one simply because they are both spelled and pronounced the same.

religion is the results of ancient science so also contains "an" understanding of reality

Religion, which is faith-based, is an alternative to science, which is empirical. Faith does not contribute to an understanding of reality. For that, you need to examine reality - empiricism. With faith you get Apollo moving the sun through the sky and Thor flinging bolts of lightning and thunder. Science provided alternative explanations, which are derived from observing and studying those phenomena and are demonstrably correct. Faith is guessing, not science. Religion is guessing, not discovering.

 

[cladking]

You seem to be saying that knowledge requires knowledge, since understanding is a kind of knowledge.

It's the way people think. Just because you know there is no bridge to Hawaii you might still try to compute how many gallons of gasoline your car will need to get there. We tend to think of about one thing at a time because of the way our knowledge is organized. We don't normally notice this just as we don't normally notice when there is a complete breakdown in communication. Parsing of most sentences allows very wide interpretation.

Modern humans (homo omnisciencis) acquire most of our formatting and beliefs with language very early in life. Homo sapiens communicated from birth but had a highly restricted vocabulary that reflected their highly limited knowledge. Their language led directly to knowledge rather than indirectly. It was learning the names of words that was education and parents would continually name words for their babies. Little was gained until about two years of age when billions of new connections begin forming in the brain and these new connections can be thought of as their models: They modeled reality directly in their brains.

Homo omniscience model the formatting of language and effectively the formatting of our each unique reality in the broccas area of the brain. We acquire knowledge through language which is processed in this manner and eventually will underlie our beliefs and models. We are very very different than each other and those who wrote the original "holy" books. Ancient Language speakers each thought the same and none of them even experienced thought so they had no word for thought or any word that implied thinking took place. They didn't think as we do and didn't experience it. Their differences were many but they each thought alike just as one robin thinks like every other robin. There are still individual differences, personalities, and experiential knowledge.

We must acquire language to learn and their language was knowledge itself as well as containing the rules for acquiring knowledge expressed as grammar and formatting.

You seem to be conflating reality with knowledge of it.

No, I just mean it literally, "Almost all of reality lies between what we know and all of reality. I know no other way to communicate this.". Our knowledge of reality is very very shallow but we can't see this.

Reality exists just as we all perceive it BUT any individual can perceive it incorrectly and every individual can perceive it incorrectly. If we all perceive London is in England we are probably all correct from at least ne perspective. But if we all perceive that either religion is correct or science is omniscient then we can all be wrong from every perspective.

The simple fact is that it doesn't matter what's going on out there as long as we can successfully manage future experience with the knowledge derived from prior experience (learning).

This isn't completely true. It's more accurate to say the only function of any science is to make accurate prediction. Just because something allows you to be correct 99% of the time doesn't mean that improvements can't increase that. Ancient science and modern science are attempts at improving "prophesy"; to better predict. We tend to think of modern science as improving paradigms and theories to apply more universally but this is largely just semantics.

Once again, please look at what you have written and what I have written, which attempts to frame reality and our knowledge of it in what I feel is a clear description, one you can agree or disagree with.

Science is fine and its models are simple enough most people have some grasp of them.

I am saying that at some point in the future reductionistic science is probably going to fail because reality is so complex. There are countless steps that can be taken in the here and now to mitigate the problems and possibly forestall some of them altogether. I'm suggesting that some of the things we believe are exceedingly hazardous to the human race and are untrue. Most humans would live better and healthier lives just by getting rid of some erroneous "science" or at least studying reality from another perspective.

I am suggesting that reality is the same for everybody, everywhere, over eternity and the task of science is to try to understand it to better predict and to be more powerful as a species.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I think this best highlights the crux of the problem in our "communication". It is a very common problem especially when believers in science confront anyone they believe believes in religion; they won't parse their sentences as intended. Many arguments, if they ever get that far, devolve into semantics. Compared to everything there is to know we know virtually nothing at all.

In other words, you meant “we know nothing at all”
hyperbolically (language that exaggerates or overstates the truth) as I suggested….
Thank for that confirmation.

Wouldn’t you agree that words have meanings?
Now, as both you and I have acknowledged, many words have more than one meaning.

The nuances between the different meanings of words can often have vast discrepancy of meaning depending on the context in which is used.
I agree, this is a failing of language.
However, it is the medium available to for us to impart our thoughts and in return interpret the thoughts of others.

This is why it’s important when conversing, that one use language as clearly as possible and stipulate which meaning of the word that they are using.

This is the reason that near the beginning of this thread I pointed out (post #79) that there are different definitions of the words “need” and “faith”
(you recall, the OP of this thread “Do we need faith”)

The problem with questions like this is each of these words; “faith” and “need” both have various definitions and, if your particular meaning isn’t specified, semantics becomes the obfuscation that people hide behind in order to misrepresent or hedge a point of view.
This is sometimes done with intention and sometimes through ignorance.

I then went on identify the meaning I was using and to give a means for others to specify the meanings they were incorporating.

This is why I strive to, and often use the same language of the person I’m conversing with….

in order to remove as much obscurity as possible..

in order to give them an opportunity to determine if
there thoughts are being misinterpreted.

in order for them to confirm if what they said is
really what they meant and give them an
opportunity to rephrase it.

As example, you said: (post #201)

No, It is reasonable to "trust" science. It is not reasonable to believe in science. Science is a method that depends on experiment and if you believe in science you start trusting experts which is unreasonable.

To which I replied: (post #229)

So, let me get this right….
You’re telling me it’s not reasonable to believe in something that I can trust?

If it’s unreasonable to trust experts, who is it reasonable to trust; the inexperienced and uneducated?
Or do you mean something different when you say
“Experts”?

You’ll note I used your wording, only I replaced the word “science” with “something” (science is in fact something) in an attempt to determine if it’s what you actually meant.
Then asked you to clarify your meaning of “experts”.
To which you replied: (post #231)

And there you go with semantics. I don't play.

Accusing me of using semantics!
Seriously?!

Yes, I "know" how science works and many of my attackers do not. But the word "know" has many meanings and every time I use any word, every time anyone uses any word, the meaning is not fixed.

Instead of people trying to understand each other and discussing the meaning and the underlying premises, they are just parsing sentences into utter nonsense and attacking the nonsense.

Here is a perfect opportunity to define your meaning in this context in order to clarify YOUR meaning, I notice you failed to do so.
Then you go on to assume you will be misconstrued and preemptively accuse people of parsing meanings and reducing a conversation to semantics.

Why wouldn’t you explain your meaning completely rather than use a word that you feel it likely to be misunderstood.

This could be construed as “poisoning the well”.

Could it be a subconscious defense mechanism to have an “out” if and when they defeat your argument, in order to preserve your internal consistency by discounting it as being misunderstood.

My understanding of science is both dated and highly incomplete.

Since you realize this…
Why would you double down on your misperceptions without researching the subject to confirm/disconfirm your understanding?

Notice this involves not just looking for a sentence which may be construed as agreeing with your preconceived notion and ignoring anything which may refute it, but incorporating all the information
to gain a better more up to date understanding.
It’s important to not let pride be a deterrent to learning new things.


You’ve admitted that science is continually expanding our understandings.
That’s one of the things I like about science it is always expanding and learning new things!
As such, obviously we will never know everything.
However, it’s not a reason to not strive to know and learn as much as possible.

 

[cladking]

Which assumptions do you consider erroneous,

As an example Darwin's assumption that populations are relatively stable led inexorably to the assumption of "survival of the fittest". It's hard to imagine an assumption that has led to more human suffering. There is Freud's assumption that we act based on a "subconscious" that has allowed a world led not by the competent but by the connected and the educated. The world is imploding and science is for sale to the highest bidder because of this nonsense. There is an assumption that humans have always been the same and are more intelligent than animals leading to our success that has produced the belief that ancient people were less evolved, less intelligent, and more superstitious. This allows the control of history that underlies the status quo and shunts all wealth to the few who are best connected. Meanwhile our cities flood due to incompetence and all of our production quickly ends up in landfill as waste.

We are living in a world created by the greatest scientists who ever lived (19th century) but whose assumptions were wrong. We are living based on theory derived from bad assumptions including things like we can understand any experiment outside of paradigms and outside of an understanding of consciousness. The modern world exists as a product of erroneous assumptions and the nonsensical belief that Peers are necessarily right.

I could be wrong about anything and willing to discuss everything but it often seems no one else can be wrong and they don't want to discuss it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's the way people think. Just because you know there is no bridge to Hawaii you might still try to compute how many gallons of gasoline your car will need to get there. We tend to think of about one thing at a time because of the way our knowledge is organized. We don't normally notice this just as we don't normally notice when there is a complete breakdown in communication. Parsing of most sentences allows very wide interpretation. Modern humans (homo omnisciencis) acquire most of our formatting and beliefs with language very early in life. Homo sapiens communicated from birth but had a highly restricted vocabulary that reflected their highly limited knowledge. Their language led directly to knowledge rather than indirectly. It was learning the names of words that was education and parents would continually name words for their babies. Little was gained until about two years of age when billions of new connections begin forming in the brain and these new connections can be thought of as their models: They modeled reality directly in their brains. Homo omniscience model the formatting of language and effectively the formatting of our each unique reality in the broccas area of the brain. We acquire knowledge through language which is processed in this manner and eventually will underlie our beliefs and models. We are very very different than each other and those who wrote the original "holy" books. Ancient Language speakers each thought the same and none of them even experienced thought so they had no word for thought or any word that implied thinking took place. They didn't think as we do and didn't experience it. Their differences were many but they each thought alike just as one robin thinks like every other robin. There are still individual differences, personalities, and experiential knowledge. We must acquire language to learn and their language was knowledge itself as well as containing the rules for acquiring knowledge expressed as grammar and formatting.

My comment was, "You seem to be saying that knowledge requires knowledge, since understanding is a kind of knowledge," which was in response to your comment, "In real life knowledge requires understanding so it can be extrapolated to new situations. But even with understanding one might not be able to use the knowledge and not necessarily use it to create."

I was hoping you would explain what you meant by that. I don't see an answer in your words. You should have been able to do that in one or two medium length sentences. How is "knowledge requires understanding" different from understanding requires knowledge or understanding IS knowledge according to your understanding of the meaning of those words?

You've asked me to take your words literally (see below), and also, to try to assign meaning to them when they are unclear so that they do make sense to me. I can't do the first, because I'm not clear on what it means to take those words literally or what a literal understanding of them would be, and doing the latter is pointless, since I'd be converting your words into something I believe without knowing that that is what you meant by them.

When did knowledge morph into language? I thought we were discussing knowledge. Perhaps you mean verbal knowledge - things people tell us or that we read. Babies acquire knowledge and understanding before they acquire language, and continue to do so after becoming verbal.

No, I just mean it literally, "Almost all of reality lies between what we know and all of reality. I know no other way to communicate this.". Our knowledge of reality is very very shallow but we can't see this.

Once again, there is no literal meaning to that, unless you mean to say that there is a literal place between reality and knowledge of reality where one can find almost all of reality. As I've told you already, how can I possibly either agree or disagree with that? I don't know what it says. I can't know if I agree with what you are claiming without knowing what it means. Perhaps if you explained which observations led you to that conclusion, I could infer what you concluded from them.

It's more accurate to say the only function of any science is to make accurate prediction.

I had written, "The simple fact is that it doesn't matter what's going on out there as long as we can successfully manage future experience with the knowledge derived from prior experience (learning)." How is your comment more accurate than mine? It compliments mine, although I prefer the word empiricism (interpreting the evidence of the senses) to science. I would reword that as knowledge is only acquired empirically, knowledge being ideas that allow one to accurately anticipate outcomes.

We tend to think of modern science as improving paradigms and theories to apply more universally but this is largely just semantics.

Modern knowledge is an improvement over past knowledge in the sense that it allows one to do things not possible before that new knowledge was discovered. Life is longer, healthier, more functional, safer, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting due to the fruits of modern knowledge. That's more than semantics.

As an example Darwin's assumption that populations are relatively stable led inexorably to the assumption of "survival of the fittest". It's hard to imagine an assumption that has led to more human suffering.

Darwin proposed that populations are relatively stable? So what? Somehow, you see that as a harmful error. Survival of the fittest is an unfortunate way of saying survival of the most fecund. What harm do you imagine coming from that idea? Are you referring to things like eugenics? If so, that's not part of the theory of evolution. If nonscientists choose to misappropriate science for ideological purposes, that's not a failure of science.

There is Freud's assumption that we act based on a "subconscious" that has allowed a world led not by the competent but by the connected and the educated.

I don't see how Freud's work led to "a world led not by the competent but by the connected and the educated." Nor can I see why you think the educated aren't also the competent, nor what harm you imagine is caused by that. Who died because of that? Who became ill or went hungry? What knowledge was lost or its acquisition significantly delayed because of it and to what harm? For those things, we look to religion, which has historically impeded scientific progress. Look at what it's doing to American women now. But science doesn't generate those kinds of bad ideas.

There is an assumption that humans have always been the same and are more intelligent than animals leading to our success that has produced the belief that ancient people were less evolved, less intelligent, and more superstitious.

Those ideas are largely correct. Intelligence might be similar. We are culturally more evolved than the ancients, with more knowledge and better ethical theory. What harm do you imagine was caused by those beliefs? I need you to be specific to begin to think you might have a point.

 

[cladking]

Wouldn’t you agree that words have meanings?

No. Not in the sense it is often used. Certainly in sentences the sentences always have meaning but it should never be forgotten every individual parses that sentence differently and the author might not have said exactly what he meant. The problem with words isn't that they lack meaning but that each of them have so many different meanings.

However, it is the medium available to for us to impart our thoughts and in return interpret the thoughts of others.

Indeed! So we should each be careful in parsing them and not assume the author is wrong.

This is why I strive to, and often use the same language of the person I’m conversing with….

You do a good job of it. I do not.

Then you go on to assume you will be misconstrued and preemptively accuse people of parsing meanings and reducing a conversation to semantics.

Everyone doesn't do that. Some people discuss and some people employ tactics.

Why wouldn’t you explain your meaning completely rather than use a word that you feel it likely to be misunderstood.

"Yes, I "know" how science works and many of my attackers do not. But the word "know" has many meanings and every time I use any word, every time anyone uses any word, the meaning is not fixed."

I have no idea what part of this you don't think you understand. I better understand how science works than most of my attackers. But my knowledge depends on my models and my beliefs which are dissimilar to most of those who don't understand science and instead believe in science. Some of them certainly have more knowledge of parts of science or even large swathes of science but they lack an understanding of why it works or how we know what we know. Without being able to model how it works their knowledge is often less available for application (thought or creation). Without understanding experiment invention is far more difficult. New technology is less likely to be developed by that individual. All things exist on continua and are cyclical over time. There is not a single parameter for the understanding of the nature of science. There are countless millions of defining characteristics for the human understanding of science. I personally have a unique perspective since it comes from three (two at least) metaphysics.

I could just duckduckgo definitions and cut and paste them as my attackers would but instead I am stating these definitions from my perspective. There is no "peer review" in real science; "peer review" is not necessary to interpret experiment within or without the prevailing paradigm. Any science not supported by experiment is not really science at all (though obviously sometimes observation virtually substitutes for experiment).

I'd be happy to elaborate further or better explain this.

Why would you double down on your misperceptions without researching the subject to confirm/disconfirm your understanding?

Science remains founded on the same assumptions it was in the '50's and '60's and even the 1890's.

You’ve admitted that science is continually expanding our understandings.

No. Science is always building on itself. Since much of it is derived from data, facts, and experiment even when the underlying premises are wrong or the paradigm is weak there is still truth (reality) to be seen in the results. Reality itself is logical so any logical parsing of that reality will most probably show some "truth". Knowledge and understanding are not synonyms. One can have a great deal of knowledge and organize it in such a way that it's true from only a single perspective. I don't believe this organization is well described by the word "understanding". Even when an experiment is misinterpreted it is still an experiment. It is still rue within the parameters of the experiment.

That’s one of the things I like about science it is always expanding and learning new things!
As such, obviously we will never know everything.
However, it’s not a reason to not strive to know and learn as much as possible.

With more understanding there would be far more creation. With better paradigms there would be increasing knowledge and exploding understanding, I believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

I’m still curious though….
Would you say that since that time, the conception of either system has become adequate?
Would it be one, the other, both or neither, and in what way?

I would say that what we knew from science and what was revealed in religion were adequate for the times in which they existed, but what we knew in former times is no longer adequate for the present time, nor will what we have in the present time be adequate in the future.

I believe that both science and religion evolve over time to meet the needs of the people living in those times. So the scientific knowledge we have now and the religion that was revealed for this age, which I believe is the Baha'i Faith, is adequate for the age we are living in but will not be adequate for future ages when the needs will be different.

I believe that the Messenger of God reveals a message in every age, and that message is suited for that age, since every age has its own problems and requirements. We should be concerned about the age we live in, not past ages or future ages. This concept is expressed in the Baha'i scriptures.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

My suspicion is that where we may disagree,
is what evidence is sufficient.

Sufficient for what purpose? All evidence is suited for a particular purpose. Also, evidence for science or law is not the same as evidence for God or a religion.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

All definitions are a paraphrase of something. No modern word has a fixed meaning.

It is a paraphrase of the unabridged 1952 Funk and Wagnalls.

Unless you were trying to “poison the well”, why would you use an obscure inaccessible definition from a 70+ year old out of print encyclopedia which can’t be checked for confirmation?

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.
This by claiming “semantics” when someone uses a modern common interpretation of the word “metaphysics”.

Is it because it’s the only thing you could find which could even vaguely be considered to conform to your understanding?
I would say that is rather disingenuous.

What virtually everyone discussing metaphysics (apparently other than you) including those actually involved with it, has a completely different concept of the word:

“It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

The first three sections of this entry examine a broad selection of problems considered to be metaphysical and discuss ways in which the purview of metaphysics has expanded over time. We shall see that the central problems of metaphysics were significantly more unified in the Ancient and Medieval eras. Which raises a question—is there any common feature that unites the problems of contemporary metaphysics? The final two sections discuss some recent theories of the nature and methodology of metaphysics. We will also consider arguments that metaphysics, however defined, is an impossible enterprise.”
Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[cladking]

Unless you were trying to “poison the well”, why would you use an obscure inaccessible definition from a 70+ year old out of print encyclopedia which can’t be checked for confirmation?

Are you really suggesting that it's improper to paraphrase definitions!!!!! are you really suggesting that dictionary definitions matter at all since they are merely paraphrasing other definitions?

Words ALWAYS mean ONLY what the author intends and NOTHING else. "Metaphysics" as I normally use the term is the first definition and means "basis of science". Word have the same meaning if you use 1000 words to define them or 3.

In 1952 "inflammable" meant something might explode with a spark. Today it means something can't burn at all. But the nature of gasoline remains the same. (well it's a little less combustible since it's all wrecked with ethyl alcohol now). Words are supposed to reflect reality not the other way round. Anything else is just word games and semantics. No matter what words you use gasoline still burns and science has a basis.

 

[cladking]

What virtually everyone discussing metaphysics (apparently other than you) including those actually involved with it, has a completely different concept of the word:

“It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

The first three sections of this entry examine a broad selection of problems considered to be metaphysical and discuss ways in which the purview of metaphysics has expanded over time. We shall see that the central problems of metaphysics were significantly more unified in the Ancient and Medieval eras. Which raises a question—is there any common feature that unites the problems of contemporary metaphysics? The final two sections discuss some recent theories of the nature and methodology of metaphysics. We will also consider arguments that metaphysics, however defined, is an impossible enterprise.”
Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I understand my definition of "metaphysics" has differences to most common usage today; more's the pity since there is no word that means "basis of science". Words like "epistemology" and "metaphysics" are sometimes employed for this purpose but most people think "metaphysics" only means "supernatural" the second definition in most dictionaries. The "basis of science" has simply been muddied by the unwillingness of most scientists to even discuss it. For practical purposes most think of metaphysics in terms of paradigms but I am defining these terms more precisely. Science went off the rails and "metaphysics" fell by the wayside. I recommend this book from the 1920's to provide a better understanding of what I mean. I read this when I was young and it had some impact on the way I think and organize knowledge. The historical sections are of less interest to me but most certainly relevant to modern metaphysics;

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf

 

[cladking]

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf

I just reread parts of this and duckduckwent a few ideas and was surprised to see Kuhn was indirectly influenced by Burtt.

It is Kuhn who was first to outline some of the ways in which philosophy influences experimental interpretation.

Applied science, practical science, and philosophical science have simply been ignored virtually since the 19th century. Otherwise some of the bad assumptions might have already been laid bare.

 

[Truthseeker]

You can't assume that your "inner conviction" is true, and use that to distort the scientific picture.

People do it all the time! If you give credence to the idea that people can possess 'inner evidence' - truth that only they can ascertain - you open the door for people to believe absolutely anything, regardless of the contradictions. FAR better to only deal with the 'outer evidence' that EVERYONE has to accept. Then we never have to deal with 'MY inner evidence is better that YOUR inner evidence'

I don't claim that my inner evidence is better than other people's inner evidence. There should be unity in diversity. We will NEVER all agree on the same thing. End of discussion.

 

[Truth in love]

Your comment was, "if you believe in science you start trusting experts which is unreasonable." I successfully rebutted that with many examples of where it was not just reasonable, but desirable to rely on the advice of experts. Now you've moved the goal post to explain why not every doctor can treat nose problems. Your claim is refuted, and your comment does not resuscitate it. You made an incorrect statement which was demonstrated to be such.



Not only isn't that credible, it's irrelevant. Given your feelings about experts in science, I'd say he lost you as soon as he was presented as that. Remember, your words were, "if you believe in science you start trusting experts which is unreasonable."

I'm curious. If trusting experts is unreasonable, who did you go to instead for advice on the virus and the pandemic instead - Trump? He recommended bleach orally and I believe rectal illumination. Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owen were all willing to give you non-expert guidance.



Again, you failed to address the comment made to you, which was, "The bottom line is that we can know from experience that empiricism is not only a reliable method for determining what's true about the world, but that it's the only means to do that." You didn't rebut that. You merely disagreed and then wrote word that don't contradict mine. In order to rebut the claim that empiricism is the only known method for determining how the word is and works, you'd need to present another method that has done that.

You can't. Why? Because the statement is correct, and correct statements cannot be successfully rebutted. Do you understand that when you fail to rebut comments, you are implicitly saying that you can't, and that this means that you were incorrect? What are the other possibilities? That you COULD defend your rebutted claim, but just didn't feel like it, or that you are correct but don't know how to demonstrate that? That's not credible.



The differences between knowledge gained through empiricism and the claims made by faith are many. Empirical truth, but not faith-based beliefs, are demonstrably correct. Empirical truth, but not faith-based beliefs, can be used to anticipate outcomes and facilitate desired ones. Empirical truth, but not faith-based beliefs, are based in correctly interpreting experience.

I am a humanist and am very familiar with spiritual experiences. Where we part ways is that you are willing to project them onto reality. They are mental states generated endogenously by neurological circuits and delivered to consciousness as apprehensions like the sense of beauty. When you experience beauty, you are not experiencing anything outside of your mind, just it's appraisal of that which is experienced as beautiful - personal and subjective, not objective or "out there."

Likewise with the spiritual. The spiritual experience is the mind generating a sense of awe, mystery, connection and gratitude in connection with sensory experiences, such as a moving passage of music, often fortified with learning, such as when being inspired by the night sky, and understanding one's connection to stars despite unfathomable distances. The mistake in my estimation is going beyond that and reading that feeling as experiencing a deity out there in the world somewhere rather than being an idea found only in human heads. That's projection, by the way - mistaking a part of ones own mind as if one were sensing external reality. You know, when somebody considers most other people liars, you're likely dealing with a liar projecting himself onto others.

You can lead a horse to water and all that...

If we conclude that any spiritual experience is a projection we must also conclude that all empirical evidence is the same. All the journals and classes could be just figments of my imagination.

 

[cladking]

Right now there's a very interesting situation in one of my fields of study that is relevant here.

It's hard to believe but Dr Zahi Hawass has been appointed the sole judge of what was what in ancient Egypt. He is a pretty good Egyptologist and was an excellent head of antiquities some years back. But now all of Egyptology, all of science that affects or depends on Egyptology, and all of the decisions about what is what is made by him. I strongly advise against watching this film but near the end he claims that he was handed the final results of the recent testing and just walked away on a world tour. Now all of reality and ancient Egypt is waiting for the guy who was never interested enough in data to gather it himself to return and pronounce judgement on completed science. The scientists who did this work don't dare release anything because historically it's been bad for their careers.

Peers define reality in many ways now days. They not only decide who gets what funding but they also decide who among them are capable of making these decisions. They decide what gets studied and even determine the results. There is a great deal of power in the pecking order so nobody is even going to TRY to research anything that offends Peers. I have no faith in this process and am suspicious of everything that derives from this process other than experimental results.

I believe it will be several more days before results are released. I predict the results of the infrared scanning and the computer modeling of this data will continue to be suppressed because it shows exactly how the pyramid was built and this means is wholly inconsistent not only with the theory that "they mustta used ramps" but it's inconsistent with Egyptological theory that "they mustta been tombs" and "it mustta been built by stinky footed bumpkins". Most of the other Egyptological theory has already been debunked. But when it was shown that the pyramids are older than was believed a new theory emerged, "the scientific testing mustta been wrong because they mustta used old wood".

Most of these results could have been obtained as early as the 1920's when infrared film became available commercially. The testing wasn't done until the middle of the last decade and they never released the results. Now the final report is done on centuries old technology but the one man competent to understand it is traveling so we'll wait longer.

We are homo omnisciencis and science has already discovered everything so who cares if data are suppressed and nobody talks?

Who cares if much of science is being perverted by money and greed?

Everyone has faith but many don't really know quite what they believe in. Many don't seem to realize that their faith determines their lives and the how it evolves.

 

[PureX]

Who cares if much of science is being perverted by money and greed?

While it's true that greed poisons and perverts everything it touches, I disagree that much of science is being perverted by greed (and it's criminal twin, ego). In fact, I would claim that science and philosoohy are the least likely intellectual endeavors to be perverted by greed and ego because they are both fully beholding to peer review.

Now, I'll be the first to say that peer review and the consensus it fosters is NOT a fountainhead of truth or wisdom. Ask anyone here and they will tell you that I am NOT a fan of the 'scientism' cult. However, I must give credit where credit is deserved and I believe that peer review is a very good means of obtaining and maintaining honesty, even if not always truth or wisdom. And for we humans, honesty is often as good as it gets. I don't believe that any scientist that tries to manipulate conclusions for money or fame or any other reason will get away with it for long. Precisely because other scientists will check up on his claims, and on his data, and on how it was supposedly obtained. and if he's lying, he will sooner or later be found out, and exposed. And a similar kind of ongoing skepticism and review happens among philosophers. For whom the proposed ideal is incomplete. As it requires strenuous debate and critique before it will even be considered worthy of legitimate contemplation. Skepticism is a fundamental part of the process of these two pursuits. Making them difficult to deliberately mislead. I'm not saying it can't be done, or has never happened. But It's not commonplace. Unlike in the endeavors of art or religion, where shills and charlatans abound.

 

[cladking]

However, I must give credit where credit is deserved and I believe that peer review is a very good means of obtaining and maintaining honesty, even if not always truth or wisdom

I agree that peer review is a good thing in most of science. My problem is with those who believe you can have faith in Peer review and that even in the softest of sciences that have never employed experiment that Peers and Et Als have some incredible ability to assure that every assumption and every line of research is credible and accurate. My problem is with "sciences" whose Peers don't even care about experiment, data, and testing because they have the answers. And, of course, I have a problem with "sciences" founded on computer modeling whose proponents strictly control all investigation. There have been too many instances through history and especially in modern times when nonsense is embraced by everyone because they wanted to believe it or it was the sole means to funding.

There are lots of charlatans always trying to put one over on people for various reasons and sometimes as a "joke".

My problem is with individuals who accept the word of Peers as though it's gospel because a committee of experts can't be wrong.

As it requires strenuous debate and critique before it will even be considered worthy of legitimate contemplation.

In this specific case the world has to wait for the Peer to come home from vacation.

And this is another issue. By definition "peer" means equals so if one man is calling all the shots there is no "peer review".

 

[PureX]

I agree that peer review is a good thing in most of science. My problem is with those who believe you can have faith in Peer review and that even in the softest of sciences that have never employed experiment that Peers and Et Als have some incredible ability to assure that every assumption and every line of research is credible and accurate.

Well, now you're referring to the scientism cult and I am in full agreement with you on them. They have made science and their weird delusional conceptions of empiricism into their personal replacement for 'God'. And they worship it as the fountainhead of all truth and wisdom, while denigrating philosophy, religion, and art as silly 'hobbies' and distractions for all those dummies that aren't as smart as the scientism cultists fancy themselves being.

But it's not science that is the problem, here. It's this new cult of 'scientism', that holds science up to be something that it clearly is not, and that no real scientist would ever claim it to be.

My problem is with "sciences" whose Peers don't even care about experiment, data, and testing because they have the answers. And, of course, I have a problem with "sciences" founded on computer modeling whose proponents strictly control all investigation. There have been too many instances through history and especially in modern times when nonsense is embraced by everyone because they wanted to believe it or it was the sole means to funding.

Well, the thing about science is you get out of it what you put into it. And you're only going to get back the "conclusions" that you sought. And I think most real scientists do understand this, and remain deeply skeptical of their own results for that reason. But the lay-believer in science as the fountainhead of all truth and wisdom don't share in that skepticism. So for them, an apparent conclusion that results from some specifically designed test becomes an 'absolute universal truth', just as if it had come from the mouth of the gods. (The science gods in this case.) And I agree with you, the whole phenomena is little different from the religious zealots that they so often rail against.

My problem is with individuals who accept the word of Peers as though it's gospel because a committee of experts can't be wrong.

I understand, but people are what they are. I am equally annoyed by the religious zealots that behave in very much the same way. But what can we do? Everyone has the right to believe what they think is right. Even when the only thing they think is right is themselves.

In this specific case the world has to wait for the Peer to come home from vacation.

And this is another issue. By definition "peer" means equals so if one man is calling all the shots there is no "peer review".

I wouldn't put much stock in that Egyptology story. Sounds like a political problem more than a scientific one. It's not like Egyptology is a fundamental part of the bedrock of our understanding of existence.

 

[cladking]

And I think most real scientists do understand this, and remain deeply skeptical of their own results for that reason.

Your whole post is well said and I agree. Just to emphasize here there are fields where many experts have no doubt. They've created castles in mid-air and live in them.

There are good scientists in EVERY field.

It's not like Egyptology is a fundamental part of the bedrock of our understanding of existence.

Unfortunately Egyptology is foundational to almost all assumptions in all fields of science. They are the source of absolute dating even after they have been proven wrong. They are one of only two sources for the oldest languages and possibly the sole source if I am correct. Their thinking underlies far more from history, and psychology to botany and zoology. Many of the tentacles of Egyptology are not apparent but they believe that humanity has always been exactly the same except we are "evolving" to be less superstitious, less ignorant, and we're probably a lot smarter. They have completely overlooked the simple fact that ancient people had a language that could NOT have been used to think like we do. The world might be a very different place today without the influence of Egyptology and without the many assumptions that underlie it.

If I'm right their most damaging influence is in linguistics, philosophy, and religion. I believe Freud and Jung are a nearly direct product of all these assumptions and they underlie many of today's problems.

This may all seem obscure to most people but our species (homo omnisciencis) each act on what we believe and Egyptological beliefs are pervasive. Superstition is a liability that kills, not an asset. Great civilizations didn't arise from superstition before ancient technology was perfected. They sprang from Knowledge > Understanding > Creation (the holy trinity).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Religion should be people's life, and used to make the world a better place.

It did?