Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Magic Man]

And I have just given you a link that shows that it does change with culture.

No, you haven't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, you haven't.

Sorry, there you go. A link with a link within

Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

Now this is not just Danish culture as this can also be found in other cultures, but what science is, is cultural. You give evidence for what science is as humam behaviour be observing people and asking people what science is to them, i.e. how they understand it. So the evidence for what science...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you clarify what you want explained, I'd be happy to.

What it is to observe. Don't give the defintion. explain what you do and how you do it.

 

[Balthazzar]

Not all evidence is equal. The best example of this is anecdotal vs. statistical. Do Americans believe in God?

Evidence A: I asked my two friends, and they said they do. Therefore Americans do believe in God.
Evidence B: We did a controlled survey of 1,500 random Americans and found that some believe in God and some don't.

Evidence B is useful. Evidence A is not.

The rest of your post is too convoluted to mean much. The fact is science is the method we use to determine facts about the universe. Religion involves beliefs, rather than an objective attempt to determine facts. In some ways, that's fine. In other ways, it runs into problems.

It would actually suggest fault in presentation of the more truthful reality that some Americans believe in God.

Statistics are typically more trustworthy than someone believing something and presenting those beliefs in a way that limits the truth in them. For example: The universe is the substance we are made of. Belief is that substance also, as are the stats accumulated from our observations, which are similar to beliefs, only beliefs are limited and subject to the subject experiencing a reason for holding the beliefs. They are still true for that believer and this does not necessarily exclude non believers from the truths present in them. It simply leaves non believers ignorant of them.

Common denominators like natural objectctive and tangible realities are foundational and basic, but applicable to everyone. Societal and cultural go a step further and deeper into the matrix and pull out other facets of life realities that often enough go unacknowledged by others. I understand your premise, but I question whether you understand my own. You suggested that theories are evidenced but not counted as truths because they are subjective and malleable, able to be expanded and built upon. I asked why this isn't true for religion?

Edit: Subjective and malleable suggesting that our observational assessment capabilities are subject to change and/or increase, after which more can be applied to the truth present in the theoretical. I view religion the same way. Active and alive, ongoing and present, and subject to truthful assessment and accountable to the same.

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry, there you go. A link with a link within

Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

Now this is not just Danish culture as this can also be found in other cultures, but what science is, is cultural. You give evidence for what science is as humam behaviour be observing people and asking people what science is to them, i.e. how they understand it. So the evidence for what science...

www.religiousforums.com

Nothing in there shows that science changes with culture. The scientific method doesn't change. I already explained that that's why scientists from different cultures can all work together.

 

[Magic Man]

What it is to observe. Don't give the defintion. explain what you do and how you do it.

You still need to clarify. I don't know what you mean by "what it is to observe" or "what you do and how you do it".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing in there shows that science changes with culture. The scientific method doesn't change. I already explained that that's why scientists from different cultures can all work together.

Yeah, you didn't read there are 3 kinds of science in Denmark. I even google translated it.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Not all evidence is equal. The best example of this is anecdotal vs. statistical. Do Americans believe in God?

Evidence A: I asked my two friends, and they said they do. Therefore Americans do believe in God.
Evidence B: We did a controlled survey of 1,500 random Americans and found that some believe in God and some don't.

Evidence B is useful. Evidence A is not.

The rest of your post is too convoluted to mean much. The fact is science is the method we use to determine facts about the universe. Religion involves beliefs, rather than an objective attempt to determine facts. In some ways, that's fine. In other ways, it runs into problems.

What’s wrong with Evidence A?

Is the fear that your friends’ cultures will be outnumbered by la cultura mayor in Evidence B and thereby be invalidated by the sciences of probability and statistics, so we better not talk about it?

I’ve run into similar problems when polling my wife.

Instead of discounting the results of my poll, I turn to science for greater understanding. Sciences like history, anthropology, and plate tectonics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You still need to clarify. I don't know what you mean by "what it is to observe" or "what you do and how you do it".

Whether they believe or not can be an objective fact. Whether their belief is justified is a different story (and can also be an objective fact). You can understand whether or not they say they believe using science. You can observe how a worldview makes sense, but that's also a different subject.

Explan how you observe as per the bold part.

 

[Magic Man]

It would actually suggest fault in presentation of the more truthful reality that some Americans believe in God.

Statistics are typically more trustworthy than someone believing something and presenting those beliefs in a way that limits the truth in them. For example: The universe is the substance we are made of. Belief is that substance also, as are the stats accumulated from our observations, which are similar to beliefs, only beliefs are limited and subject to the subject experiencing a reason for holding the beliefs. They are still true for that believer and this does not necessarily exclude non believers from the truths present in them. It simply leaves non believers ignorant of them.

Common denominators like natural objectctive and tangible realities are foundational and basic, but applicable to everyone. Societal and cultural go a step further and deeper into the matrix and pull out other facets of life realities that often enough go unacknowledged by others. I understand your premise, but I question whether you understand my own. You suggested that theories are evidenced but not counted as truths because they are subjective and malleable, able to be expanded and built upon. I asked why this isn't true for religion?

I think this might be an issue of misunderstanding. What I said was that "truths" are subjective and malleable. Scientific theories are not subjective and malleable. Religious beliefs are subjective and malleable, although sometimes they make claims regarding facts about the universe.

 

[Magic Man]

What’s wrong with Evidence A?

Is the fear that your friends’ cultures will be outnumbered by la cultura mayor in Evidence B and thereby be invalidated by the sciences of probability and statistics, so we better not talk about it?

I’ve run into similar problems when polling my wife.

Instead of discounting the results of my poll, I turn to science for greater understanding. Sciences like history, anthropology, and plate tectonics.

Evidence A is likely to give an inaccurate answer.

 

[Magic Man]

Explan how you observe as per the bold part.

Well, you take the worldview, learn about it and run its claims through logic and objective facts about the world.

 

[Balthazzar]

I think this might be an issue of misunderstanding. What I said was that "truths" are subjective and malleable. Scientific theories are not subjective and malleable. Religious beliefs are subjective and malleable, although sometimes they make claims regarding facts about the universe.

I made an edit addition to the quoted post relevant to this one.

 

[Magic Man]

I made an edit addition to the quoted post relevant to this one.

Thanks. I went back and read it. I don't think it changes what I said. Do you see it as changing it?

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, you didn't read there are 3 kinds of science in Denmark. I even google translated it.

I read it. The google translated part talked about natural science vs. the humanities. And the rest of your post ignored the distinction between them. Nothing in there shows science changes with culture. It only shows what I said, that "science" is used to mean different things. Conflating them as if they're all the same is not right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, you take the worldview, learn about it and run its claims through logic and objective facts about the world.

How do you observe logic? And how do you decide a moral standpoint using logic and objective facts?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I read it. The google translated part talked about natural science vs. the humanities. And the rest of your post ignored the distinction between them. Nothing in there shows science changes with culture. It only shows what I said, that "science" is used to mean different things. Conflating them as if they're all the same is not right.

I never did that. In effect I also if I have to differentiate between science, natural science, social sicence and cultural science. You don't do that as you claim in it effect science must be natual science.

 

[PureX]

Completely removing bias might not be 100% possible, but removing the vast majority of it is. That's why I said "as much as possible".

This is why the scientism cultists really need to pull their heads out of their phony scientific behinds and start thinking philosophically. Or even just LOGICALLY.

So, if we cannot eliminate our bias, how can we possibly know that our supposed attempt at eliminating it is not, itself, our bias? Or let's look at it another way. If we cannot know the WHOLE TRUTH, how can we possibly tell if the partial truth that we think we know is true or not? I mean, it's true or false compared to what? Compared to the other partial truths that we think we know but can never be certain of?

OK, let's try this another way. What is the logical probability that the proposition X = X is true?

Bob says it's an absolute certainty that the proposition is true because that is what the = symbol means, and says. Whatever "X" is, it has to be equal to the other "X".

But Steve says that this is exactly why it is absolutely certain that the statement is false. Because there is no such comparable condition as absolute equality. Absolute equality can only occur within the SAME subject. "X" would have to be compared TO ITSELF to be deemed absolutely equal. And that would then completely negate the logic of the comparison. "X = X" is a logically incoherent proposition.

And so is the proposition that we can know the truth, or that we can eliminate our bias. And THIS is why the scientism cultists are fools, and why they are trying to blow smoke up everyone else's butts, along with their own.

We're not talking about "truth". That's too subjective and charged a term.

Truth is not subjective. It is an absolute ideal. The truth is WHAT IS; plain and simple and with no exceptions. The problem is that we humans cannot access the truth as a whole. And apart from the whole, there is no truth. There is only relative truthfulness. Which is always subject to bias, and error, and deception.

We're talking about facts. The fact that we are the bias is the whole point of the scientific method. That's the bias it removes. That's why we do controlled tests and then check them and then have others check them, to avoid that specific bias.

Facts ARE bias. This is what you're not understanding. It's a fact that Bob is correct, above. It's also a fact that Steve is correct, above. And yet they directly and totally contradict each other. How can this be? How can two completely opposed conclusions both be correct?

The answer is that the truth is bigger and more inclusive than either Bob or Steve can comprehend. So from Bob's limited perspective, his conclusion is correct. While from Steve's limited perspective, his conclusion is correct. While from our slightly less limited perspective, both of them are correct, and both of them are incorrect. Because the truth is still greater (more inclusive and transcendent) than that which any of our binary minds can cognate.

And science is NOT going to overcome this. Never has, and never will.

This was right above me specifically saying scientists do not arrive at "truths" because "truth" isn't a scientific term. Scientists do indeed draw conclusions, though. It's literally part of the scientific process. Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Conclusion.

What you are calling a "conclusion" here is just the next hypothesis to be addressed. It's not a conclusion in any sense of it being truth, or proof, or whatever version of surety you want to label it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

OK, let's try this another way. What is the logical probability that the proposition X = X is true?

Bob says it's an absolute certainty that the equation is true because that is what the = symbol means, and says. Whatever "X" is, it has to be be equal to the other "X".

But Steve says that this is exactly why it is absolutely certain that the statement is false. Because there is no such comparable condition as absolute equality. Absolute equality can only occur within the SAME subject. "X" would have to be compared TO ITSELF to be deemed absolutely equal. And that would then completely negate the logic of the comparison. "X = X" is a logically incoherent proposition.

...

A variation of the problem of same. This X is not this X as they are at different space and time in effect for the understanding if they are exactly the same.

 

[Balthazzar]

Thanks. I went back and read it. I don't think it changes what I said. Do you see it as changing it?

No, but I still question whether you understand my position.