Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Magic Man]

No, that they are different versions which can't be judged using an objective standard.
There is no objective standard for what science is.

Yes, there is. Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained". Again, there is an objective standard, which is why scientists from all over the world can collaborate on it, regardless of culture.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

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.

@Magic Man

Let’s try this again.

Perhaps I should be more specific.

Evidence A is a poll I conducted with sample size one. (My wife, not your two friends, who you might have selected in a biased manner because you knew your friends were wrong. I prefer my own biased sample, which is biased in favor of compatibility with science, in part due to what appears to be some sort of alliance between academia and my wife’s culture. Anthropologists and historians make careers out of studying her religion, culture and history. Her culture is a boon for science, due to the inability of the Spanish to exterminate it like so many others over the centuries.)

Evidence B is the same as your imaginary poll for Evidence B. Expand the sample size to zillions if you want.

The stories that I heard more than a quarter century ago with a sample size of one can be verified with the tools of science.

The hardest part is figuring out who the experts are. But you can figure that out by watching YouTube videos.

Then it’s just a matter of bibliography checking.

 

[Balthazzar]

Our sensory systems are there for input data. The thalamus region of the brain processes all this data first; besides smell, and then distributes it to be processed further in the cerebral matter. The thalamus also triggers awareness, that can make some data stand out for further investigation. This helps the inner animal find what it needs. As a child I was good at finding four leaf clovers in the summer I could look down and my thalamus or inner self would pull my eye right to them; subliminal data narrowed to my need.

If we put aside the inner self and thalamus; unconscious mind, the input data is processed, by the ego, internally, based on our learned foundation premises and how we have consciously built on that foundation over time. This explains why people from the ancient times, when they saw the sun rise and set, attributed that to the god Helios. It did not mean they did not see the same hard data we see. Rather they internally processed the same data we see, in that way, due to their ancient education. Smart people with a weak foundation can look not as smart.

Consensus thinking is not the final say, if all have learned the same filters. Falsification is important to science and a real scientist will try to falsify; buck the herd, so he is not a consensus herd animal. If this effort fails, it is added to the filter.

There is an effect of the mind I like to call sensory expectation. The internal programming; inner self or conscious belief system filter, like computer logic, already has its (if and do loops) set up. This will impact how you will interpret, even before you see the data. This is common to political foundation premises and filters, where two sets of people interpret the same data summary, in different ways, and both can justify their position, since the cart; internal foundation, came before the horse; sensory input; political bias.

When some Atheists or Religious listen to the arguments from the other side, this input data is automatically structured by their internal foundation, to the point where there are no exceptions; unconscious structured analysis. Racism also works this way.

Let me give an example of the filter paradox. The classic nuclear family is the most efficient social unit for taking care of social needs, especially if that nuclear family involves three generations; children, parents and grandparents. We can run science experiments to prove this. We can survey a wide range of real life people in all the various social constructs. Because religion claimed this first, Atheism, who claims to be based on science, will deny the results of this science. While some in religion will deny the need for science tests, but prefer to believe this was the word of God and does not need proving.

Many years ago, as a younger man, I started to understand how the mind works, down to the inner self. What we see; senses, is molded by what we believe and other internal logic built on our foundation premises and human nature. We create our own reality this way. I decided to put on the intellectual coveralls and go down into the sub basement of my mind, to look at my foundation premises, to make sure everything was sound; up to code, before building even more.

Like a house, the foundation may be designed for a nice two story house. If you try to build up, two more stories, the house may sag, unless you add more support structure. This is when old theory and old ways start to fall apart or be overhauled. In my case, my effort triggered an unconscious train of thought that extrapolated and my old house of knowledge collapsed. I had to rebuild again from scratch; set a cornerstone. Now I have a more sturdy foundation that includes the inner self and its subliminal processing areas.

The mind works in mysterious ways. I've noticed how sometimes my internal compass betrays me due to preprogrammed data association and particularly in discussions where other party intent is unclear. I've totally misread intent based on my preprogramming. I'm trying to be a better listener now. It can be a difficult thing to accept fault in a conversation where agreeing parties are articulating the view in a way that triggers the red flag opposing contributor defense mechanisms.

"Ahem, I was agreeing with you."

"Ohhh. Hmmm ... well ... ok then."

 

[Magic Man]

@Magic Man

Let’s try this again.

Perhaps I should be more specific.

Evidence A is a poll I conducted with sample size one. (My wife, not your two friends, who you might have selected in a biased manner because you knew your friends were wrong. I prefer my own biased sample, which is biased in favor of compatibility with science, in part due to what appears to be some sort of alliance between academia and my wife’s culture. Anthropologists and historians make careers out of studying her religion, culture and history. Her culture is a boon for science, due to the inability of the Spanish to exterminate it like so many others over the centuries.)

Evidence B is the same as your imaginary poll for Evidence B. Expand the sample size to zillions if you want.

The stories that I heard more than a quarter century ago with a sample size of one can be verified with the tools of science.

The hardest part is figuring out who the experts are. But you can figure that out by watching YouTube videos.

Then it’s just a matter of bibliography checking.

I have no idea what this means. What is the question you're gathering evidence to answer? What are these stories? What do you mean by experts?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I have no idea what this means. What is the question you're gathering evidence to answer? What are these stories? What do you mean by experts?

There are lots of stories in my Evidence A poll that I took more than a quarter century ago. And many more that I’ve learned thru science.

Instead of rejecting poll results out of hand as you did with your two friends, I chose to stumble across some old music videos, and YouTube’s algorithms eventually led me to the truth.

Note the use of technology, which is a double edged sword.

For oral traditions, the same technology that led to the decomposition of religion and culture ( with the construction of the Pan American Highway) also empowers non-western cultures.

But la modernidad has also had a similar effect in western culture. The palenques are just the Canaries in the Gold Mine, so in western cultures there is a fear of technologies like YouTube.

By experts, I mean the Historians and Anthropologists and Musicians and Artists who are the world’s leading experts on the topic.

What do you mean by experts?

People with actual expertise, right?

 

[Magic Man]

There are lots of stories in my Evidence A poll that I took more than a quarter century ago. And many more that I’ve learned thru science.

Instead of rejecting poll results out of hand as you did with your two friends, I chose to stumble across some old music videos, and YouTube’s algorithms eventually led me to the truth.

Note the use of technology, which is a double edged sword.

For oral traditions, the same technology that led to the decomposition of religion and culture ( with the construction of the Pan American Highway) also empowers non-western cultures.

But la modernidad has also had a similar effect in western culture. The palenques are just the Canaries in the Gold Mine, so in western cultures there is a fear of technologies like YouTube.

By experts, I mean the Historians and Anthropologists and Musicians and Artists who are the world’s leading experts on the topic.

What do you mean by experts?

People with actual expertise, right?

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Here was the original.

Do Americans (I'll amend to "all Americans" here for the sake of ease and clarity) believe in God?

Evidence A is asking two friends and reporting back that all three of you believe in God, leading to your conclusion that all Americans believe in God.
Evidence B is a scientific poll of 1,500 random Americans.

Evidence A is not good evidence because it's a tiny sample size likely to give inaccurate results on the larger question. This illustrates the difference in quality between two kinds of evidence.

If you want to use a different example, go ahead, but you need to lay it out clearly. What is the question you're trying to answer? (This is the most important part, and you didn't address it.) What is Evidence A, and what is Evidence B? Why is this relevant to what I was talking about?

 

[Quintessence]

Are you really trying to disagree on the basis of the word determine vs describe and as much as possible vs total elimination is impossible?

No. The terms I used specifically were "descriptive" contrasted with "prescriptive." I'm not sure where you are getting "determine" from. This way of framing things was used by a professor I had back in the day because it was a helpful mnemonic as well. What I presented was a way of understanding science that does not see "the point" of the discipline be the reduction or elimination of bias. As I was taught, "the point" of science is describing the world through repeated empirical observation. Impartiality (reduced bias) is part of that - or rather, recognition and identification of limits and biases that are always going to be present - but not really "the point" per se.

I will then state that IMO this concept of mindfulness is so vague as to be useless and actually detrimental to rational thought.

I don't understand what you mean. Do you not follow how mindfulness (or awareness) of the philosophical axioms of a discipline or the assumptions it makes - its biases, if you want to use that word - is essential to "rational thought" and critical thinking within that discipline? Have you ever studied the philosophy of science? Or of some other discipline you practice and have more reason to be familiar with?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Here was the original.

Do Americans (I'll amend to "all Americans" here for the sake of ease and clarity) believe in God?

Evidence A is asking two friends and reporting back that all three of you believe in God, leading to your conclusion that all Americans believe in God.
Evidence B is a scientific poll of 1,500 random Americans.

Evidence A is not good evidence because it's a tiny sample size likely to give inaccurate results on the larger question. This illustrates the difference in quality between two kinds of evidence.

If you want to use a different example, go ahead, but you need to lay it out clearly. What is the question you're trying to answer? (This is the most important part, and you didn't address it.) What is Evidence A, and what is Evidence B? Why is this relevant to what I was talking about?

Bait and switch.

Your post wasn’t replying to your tiny poll.

Your post was a reply to my even tinier poll.

 

[Magic Man]

Bait and switch.

Your post wasn’t replying to your tiny poll.

Your post was a reply to my even tinier poll.

Yes, apparently you did bait and switch. Your original reply about this asked what was wrong with Evidence A, referring to the Evidence A in my post. That's what I was responding to. If you wanted to talk about a different example, you should have been clearer. Again, you need to explain what question you're trying to obtain evidence for, and why it is relevant to what I was talking about.

 

[Pogo]

No. The terms I used specifically were "descriptive" contrasted with "prescriptive." I'm not sure where you are getting "determine" from. This way of framing things was used by a professor I had back in the day because it was a helpful mnemonic as well. What I presented was a way of understanding science that does not see "the point" of the discipline be the reduction or elimination of bias. As I was taught, "the point" of science is describing the world through repeated empirical observation. Impartiality (reduced bias) is part of that - or rather, recognition and identification of limits and biases that are always going to be present - but not really "the point" per se.


I don't understand what you mean. Do you not follow how mindfulness (or awareness) of the philosophical axioms of a discipline or the assumptions it makes - its biases, if you want to use that word - is essential to "rational thought" and critical thinking within that discipline? Have you ever studied the philosophy of science? Or of some other discipline you practice and have more reason to be familiar with?

Determine came from the post you responded to.
As for mindfulness at some point in the future if it can actually be defined in such a way as to be useful, till then it is as should be obvious, a word with to many definitions to be useful.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Here was the original.

Do Americans (I'll amend to "all Americans" here for the sake of ease and clarity) believe in God?

Evidence A is asking two friends and reporting back that all three of you believe in God, leading to your conclusion that all Americans believe in God.
Evidence B is a scientific poll of 1,500 random Americans.

Evidence A is not good evidence because it's a tiny sample size likely to give inaccurate results on the larger question. This illustrates the difference in quality between two kinds of evidence.

If you want to use a different example, go ahead, but you need to lay it out clearly. What is the question you're trying to answer? (This is the most important part, and you didn't address it.) What is Evidence A, and what is Evidence B? Why is this relevant to what I was talking about?

OK, let’s go with your narrow question, but with my poll, because…well…why not?

Statistics can be rigged, by techniques such as ethnic cleansings and genocide, so your large poll sample is likely to be heavily culturally biased towards western viewpoints, unless you take special care to include those who were fortunate enough to be born at the center of the world in a slave regime, and other non-western cultures here in America.

A poll on religion in America that excludes those who were born at the very center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell, can hardly be said to be representative of religion in America.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, let’s go with your narrow question, but with my poll, because…well…why not?

Statistics can be rigged, by techniques such as ethnic cleansings and genocide, so your large poll sample is likely to be heavily culturally biased towards western viewpoints, unless you take special care to include those who were fortunate enough to be born at the center of the world in a slave regime, and other non-western cultures here in America.

A poll on religion in America that excludes those who were born at the very center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell, can hardly be said to be representative of religion in America.

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

The question is:

Do all Americans believe in God?

One form of evidence is asking 2 people and then forming a conclusion about the overall population of hundreds of millions. Another way is to systematically ask 1,500 random people. The second option is likely to get you an accurate answer. The first is not. The second option would represent the people of America pretty well, although not perfectly. But the first option wouldn't represent them at all.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yes, apparently you did bait and switch. Your original reply about this asked what was wrong with Evidence A, referring to the Evidence A in my post. That's what I was responding to. If you wanted to talk about a different example, you should have been clearer. Again, you need to explain what question you're trying to obtain evidence for, and why it is relevant to what I was talking about.

I don’t know your two friends, and your methodology seems suspect.

Do your two friends consider the land beneath your feet sacred territory? (Maybe that’s the problem?)

There are many reasons why westerners might discount even your Evidence A.

My example only differs from your example by my reducing your sample size from two to one.

So I’m not sure what the big difference is, unless you know something about your two friends that I don’t know.

But it disturbs me that you reject your friends’ worldviews out of hand because you think some other folks might manage to outvote them.

 

[Magic Man]

I don’t know your two friends, and your methodology seems suspect.

Do your two friends consider the land beneath your feet sacred territory? (Maybe that’s the problem?)

There are many reasons why westerners might discount even your Evidence A.

My example only differs from your example by my reducing your sample size from two to one.

So I’m not sure what the big difference is, unless you know something about your two friends that I don’t know.

But it disturbs me that you reject your friends’ worldviews out of hand because you think some other folks might manage to outvote them.

You're misunderstanding. The methodology of Evidence A is suspect. That's the whole point. It's a bad way to gather such data. Evidence A should be discounted.

I'm not rejecting their worldview. I'm saying it doesn't represent the other 330 million Americans. This has nothing to do with why they believe anything or whether their worldview has merit. It's about who believes what. I'll simplify for you:

Do all Americans think the world is flat?

Ask two people you know.
Ask 1,500 random people in a controlled survey.

Which is likely to give you an accurate answer to the question? The second one.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You're misunderstanding. The methodology of Evidence A is suspect. That's the whole point. It's a bad way to gather such data. Evidence A should be discounted.

How is your Evidence A any different from my Evidence A?

Yeah, I know. My sample size was half of your sample size.

I chose not to discount Evidence A, and used the tools of science to learn more.

You could do that with your two friends, but you choose not to.

Instead, you discount the evidence, rather than using it as a foundation from which to look at the science behind it.

Your methodology wouldn’t have worked for me.

It basically consists of uttering the word “science” over and over again as some kind of magical incantation.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

I like magic.

But have you ever noticed how few times that you’ll actually see the word “science” in scholarly articles in particular sciences?

That would be like saying the word “logic” over and over again in a research article in logic.

It just doesn’t happen.

Something New Everyday film (2011)

'Something New Everyday: The Math and Magic of Ron Graham', a film by George Csicsery.

This 21-minute film was prepared for Ron Graham's 80th birthday. It celebrates Graham's remarkable career as a mathematician and magician, as well as his important leadership roles in many of the institutions that support the pursuit of mathematics throughout the world. The film contains outtakes from the film 'N is a Number: A Portrait of Paul Erdős' that were shot between 1988 and 1991, scenes from a day of filming at Graham's December 1999 retirement event at Bell Labs, and interviews filmed for 'Erdős 100', a 30-minute film that was screened at Paul Erdős's 100th birthday celebration in Budapest in 2013.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I'm not rejecting their worldview. I'm saying it doesn't represent the other 330 million Americans. This has nothing to do with why they believe anything or whether their worldview has merit. It's about who believes what. I'll simplify for you:

You are misusing statistics in such a way as to privilege western cultures here in America over non-western cultures, based on demographics related to centuries of ethnic cleansings and genocides.

That’s a horrible misuse of statistics.

 

[Pogo]

OK, let’s go with your narrow question, but with my poll, because…well…why not?

Statistics can be rigged, by techniques such as ethnic cleansings and genocide, so your large poll sample is likely to be heavily culturally biased towards western viewpoints, unless you take special care to include those who were fortunate enough to be born at the center of the world in a slave regime, and other non-western cultures here in America.

A poll on religion in America that excludes those who were born at the very center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell, can hardly be said to be representative of religion in America.

If you are going to cast shade on the scientific methodology of polling you will need more than just a claim that it ignores certain classes.
You will need data and while I agree that you may well be correct, you are not doing a good job of arguing your point.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

If you are going to cast shade on the scientific methodology of polling you will need more than just a claim that it ignores certain classes.
You will need data and while I agree that you may well be correct, you are not doing a good job of arguing your point.

I’ve offered to help him find the information.

He doesn’t appear receptive to actual science, though.

Just uttering the word repeatedly as some sort of magic incantation.

His unwillingness to learn is not my responsibility.

Information is available.

 

[Pogo]

I’ve offered to help him find the information.

He doesn’t appear receptive to actual science, though.

Just uttering the word repeatedly as some sort of magic incantation.

His unwillingness to learn is not my responsibility.

Information is available.

Ok I, am confused, maybe you have offered data, but I haven't seen it. Trouble keeping up with too many threads.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Ok I, am confused, maybe you have offered data, but I haven't seen it. Trouble keeping up with too many threads.

I’ve offered information from historians and anthropologists who happen to experts.

I know what you mean about too many threads, though.