Faith in science?

[shunyadragon]

This is Pigliucci's philosophical understanding of consciousness. He's a philosopher, you might have noticed.

Actually read again he endorsed the scientific biological explanation, and not a philosophical/theological explanation regardless of whether he is a philosopher or not.

Being a philosopher is not the issue. For example Popper developed the contemporary Methodological Naturalism for science, but yes he is a philosopher.

 

[Brian2]

Again a misuse of the definition of faith as clearly previously described. Methodological Naturalism is limited by definition to the physical nature of our physical existence based on 'objective verifiable existence. Methodological Naturalism by definition is neutral to whether there is a spiritual basis of consciousness. Scientists believe in a wide range of theological and philosophical beliefs based on 'faith or lack of 'faith,' but they support Methodological Naturalism based on the 'objective verifiable evidence' concerning the physical nature of our existence.

OK

Previously I defined two ways faith is used in the English language, and neither as anything to do with science. The common layman everyday use of faith in the practical things in life such as: 'I have faith that the airplane is safe." and the theological/philosophical definition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fai....69i57j0l7.7508j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians"
2. confidence as in "confidence in the staff." credence and reliance: "reliance on pesticides"
3. Theological definition of faith

1. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
2. "bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

A common term by laymen could be "I have faith that science will find the answer", and when it comes to things like what consciousness is, the faith could be said to be in the notion that there is no spiritual realm, for some people. Whether you call it faith or belief it really does not matter except in a technical sense. Scientific belief is a different sort of belief based on solid evidence,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sometimes. Other times it seems to be more of a faith in the naturalistic ideology and that all answers will be naturalistic.

 

[Brian2]

The definition is based on the existence of 'objective verifiable evidence,' and nothing is over looked. Literally thousands of scientists research and try and study the paranormal, and existence of spiritual worlds and existence, but at present nothing consistent, predictable nor verifiable on the objective level. The existence of spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence remains subjective and anecdotal and based 'faith.'

No doubt, but there is surely plenty of anecdotal evidence, just as there are plenty of scientific successes. It is not an either/or situation when it comes to being objective about religious belief and belief in science. We can do both, as I am sure you know.
Nevertheless in science some of the beliefs don't seem to be based on verifiable evidence and the same applies in religion.

 

[exchemist]

Actually read again he endorsed the scientific biological explanation, and not a philosophical/theological explanation regardless of whether he is a philosopher or not.

Being a philosopher is not the issue. For example Popper developed the contemporary Methodological Naturalism for science, but yes he is a philosopher.

He applied philosophy to the issue in order to reach his conclusion. Why do you find that so hard to understand?

 

[exchemist]

No doubt, but there is surely plenty of anecdotal evidence, just as there are plenty of scientific successes. It is not an either/or situation when it comes to being objective about religious belief and belief in science. We can do both, as I am sure you know.
Nevertheless in science some of the beliefs don't seem to be based on verifiable evidence and the same applies in religion.

What beliefs in science are not based on verifiable evidence? I can't think of any, offhand.

Though I suppose there may beliefs about science, conveyed by the media etc, that are not based on evidence.

 

[Brian2]

The foundation of science is the fact that natural laws and natural processes are the origins of the nature of our physical existence. All the theories and hypothesis test the hypothesis has natural origins. There is no objective verifiable evidence of any other cause.

I assume you are talking about NDEs.
What is the test to see if NDEs have spiritual origins? None. So only tests to see if there are natural origins and has the answer been found which answers how an unconscious patient in one room knows what happened in another room?
The plain answer, without scientific tests, is a spiritual cause but some won't accept that and other hypotheses have to be found. That imo is bias.
But I'm willing to accept the science if it actually proves natural causes.

 

[shunyadragon]

A common term by laymen could be "I have faith that science will find the answer", and when it comes to things like what consciousness is, the faith could be said to be in the notion that there is no spiritual realm, for some people. Whether you call it faith or belief it really does not matter except in a technical sense. Scientific belief is a different sort of belief based on solid evidence,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sometimes. Other times it seems to be more of a faith in the naturalistic ideology and that all answers will be naturalistic.

Too many qualifications and hedging in the above. Sometimes? No, science is based on 'objective verifiable evidence always, or it is not science, but based on 'faith.'

Anecdotal layman 'having faith' is not meaningful as to what is the basis of science. 'It seems' and 'a different sort of belief based on solid evidence . . . . . . . sometimes,' does not compute. In the hundreds of years of the development of science there is no room for anecdotal 'faith' in the conclusions concerning science

 

[shunyadragon]

I assume you are talking about NDEs.
What is the test to see if NDEs have spiritual origins? None. So only tests to see if there are natural origins and has the answer been found which answers how an unconscious patient in one room knows what happened in another room?
The plain answer, without scientific tests, is a spiritual cause but some won't accept that and other hypotheses have to be found. That imo is bias.

But I'm willing to accept the science if it actually proves natural causes.

Unanswered questions do not justify a 'spiritual cause.' This is the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance' in claiming that, because science does not currently have an explanation, ie NDEs, therefore a spiritual cause must be assumed based on a religious agenda. There is at present no falsifiable hypothesis that would test for a 'spiritual cause.'

The question of the causes of NDEs is to a degree an open and unresolved question.

The objective basis concerning our physical existence is the assumption that our physical existence is uniform, predictable, and consistent. Tis assumption is test in every hypothesis and theory that make up the evolving nature of scientific knowledge.

 

[shunyadragon]

He applied philosophy to the issue in order to reach his conclusion. Why do you find that so hard to understand?

No he did not 'apply philosophy to the issue.' He simply acknowledge that the scientific conclusions that consciousness has scientific biological explanation.

 

[exchemist]

No he did not 'apply philosophy to the issue.' He simply acknowledge that the scientific conclusions that consciousness has scientific biological explanation.

Wrong. Pigliucci makes a philosophical argument that the hard problem only arises due to a category mistake. A category mistake is a philosophical concept developed by Gilbert Ryle, a philosopher: Category mistake - Wikipedia

You seem to have this bee in your bonnet that philosophy is somehow an alternative to science, or conflicts with science, or has nothing useful to say about science, or something. That is just bigoted and wrong, cf. Karl Popper.

 

[Audie]

I assume you are talking about NDEs.
What is the test to see if NDEs have spiritual origins? None. So only tests to see if there are natural origins and has the answer been found which answers how an unconscious patient in one room knows what happened in another room?
The plain answer, without scientific tests, is a spiritual cause but some won't accept that and other hypotheses have to be found. That imo is bias.
But I'm willing to accept the science if it actually proves natural causes.

Thats the plain answer for those who
want that answer.

For others, the failure to find a. " spiritual"
answer to ANYTHING, and the success of
science in lots of things, well, you lknow.

Oh, and science does not do proof.

 

[rational experiences]

O pi circular thinking to Phi O.

O God earth is natural mass.

O mass. Natural O.

Sciences O circle is artificial.

Thinks. Says I will give spatial emptiness coldest state a description by words.

Science he first claims consciously are words. A lie.

O mass natural cold highest science statement natural. Not his words.

Vacuum a law he says mother of God. Why mass held is cold. Space without form cold.

Cannot do science unless mass is present.

Another coercive human lie in science.

To think when mass never existed a science reactive thesis for a machine model. Mass has to exist to build a machine.

If you want a reaction to return into a higher state than it was via a thinking answer..you say mother space. Some said eternal. Space empty will always remain in that state eternally.

How can natural highest body mass convert into a higher than form coldest of natural presence,?

Circular thinking lied...coercive.

Reactions go into a lower removed state.

Taught cooling holds form so you applied cooling by control in machines.

Natural was by vacuum.

Vacuum highest gas state not burning.

How do you apply science?

Change.

Burning gas light.

Thinker using consciousness quotes in. Burning gas alight heavens the bio life is kept safe by non burning balances.

Just thinking.

Thinking does not own reality as a concept to copy. It is just a teaching.

Consciousness teaches the thinker that many thoughts are wrong. We claim intelligence by that condition.

Science proved it was not intelligent it conjured artificial intelligence and became possessed by its false statements.

AI said the human spirit which in God is water and oxygen generation boarded the ramp of the built ark.

Humans and animals bio forms involved. Garden not like our cells not included.

Instead the quote bushes burnt.

The ark released from earth heart. AI effect.

Core...AI artificial UFO effect. Removal of human life due to water losses that had to evaporate huge ground water losses to cool heavenly burning gases.

Caused by heart core release. Beneath our feet where machine mass was abstracted artificially.

Extra burning.

As the ark was a cause life was notified by science that it was going to be sacrificed. Ignored advice. Science claim I built the ark to save life but prophecy science advised most life will be destroyed.

You deserve it. Notice possession of the psyche.

Coercive lying I am special. Special chosen group science cult mentality. We will live on. Small DNA survival rate.

The irradiation attack occurred. Humans became like the beast forms. We became mutated and our genetics human left us. Animal like bodies inherited.

Satanism.

A summation after the fact when the records were reheard as humans healed and returned to their preexisting human forms. Told the stories as warning to humanity.

Were laughed at until it recurred. Then they were believed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your lack of education in science is appalling. Get an education in basic science would help.

Seems uncalled for and unwarranted, to say the least

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No. You are excercising trust in a method of inquiry that has earned that trust with its immens and impressive track record of solving riddles that were once deemed unsolvable by many.

The sun has a pretty good track record when it comes to rising and setting every day (I am using "rising/setting" as shorthand for the actual processes vis-à-vis the rotation of the Earth about its axis and about the sun and so forth). I have faith that the sun will rise again tomorrow and the day after AND even many, many days to come. One can have faith in a process, method, person, idea, etc., based on a good track record as well as evidence and more. Faith is not synonymous with "blind faith."

 

[Brian2]

Too many qualifications and hedging in the above. Sometimes? No, science is based on 'objective verifiable evidence always, or it is not science, but based on 'faith.'

"Based on" means in parts of science that chemistry and physics is known and guesses are made based on that and on the naturalistic methodology.
If the naturalistic assumptions are not correct about some things then the conclusions are just plain wrong and God really did it as He has told us.
Nevertheless science is science and people trust it to be pretty factual and most people would not even know that guesswork is a part of it. That should be part of the publishings of scientific findings. As it is, it is just naturalism attacking religion with religion having no reply except to point out possible wrong assumptions.

 

[Brian2]

Unanswered questions do not justify a 'spiritual cause.' This is the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance' in claiming that, because science does not currently have an explanation, ie NDEs, therefore a spiritual cause must be assumed based on a religious agenda. There is at present no falsifiable hypothesis that would test for a 'spiritual cause.'

The question of the causes of NDEs is to a degree an open and unresolved question.

What happens with some NDEs is reasonable evidence imo for the existence of spirit that can travel from a body at the death of the body. Unless a reason can be given for people verifiably knowing stuff about what happened in other places while their body was not functioning then we have our evidence for the spirit realm.
But ideas that are too simplistic and religious and from laymen won't have an impact on science, so science will come up with their naturalistic answer and it may even be true in many of the NDE examples.

The objective basis concerning our physical existence is the assumption that our physical existence is uniform, predictable, and consistent. Tis assumption is test in every hypothesis and theory that make up the evolving nature of scientific knowledge.

Not really. In some hypotheses the assumption is just assumed, and that leads to get a naturalistic answer.

 

[Brian2]

Thats the plain answer for those who
want that answer.

It is just that I can't think of a way for someone to know what happened in another room (verifiably) when their bodies were not functioning without their spirit having gone there and having seen what happened as they report.
I think there are people who don't want the plain answer.
I accept that science has to be thorough but to disregard the evidence (anecdotal as it is) is not scientific.

Oh, and science does not do proof.

I have been told that, but the way the science gets to the public certainly looks like it has found proof for things.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Based on" means in parts of science that chemistry and physics is known and guesses are made based on that and on the naturalistic methodology.
If the naturalistic assumptions are not correct about some things then the conclusions are just plain wrong and God really did it as He has told us.
Nevertheless science is science and people trust it to be pretty factual and most people would not even know that guesswork is a part of it. That should be part of the publishings of scientific findings. As it is, it is just naturalism attacking religion with religion having no reply except to point out possible wrong assumptions.

This looks like a profound misunderstanding. The only place in science for what might be called 'guessing' is when you first come up with some new idea that might be the answer to some problem. You must then turn it into a testable and falsifiable hypothesis and actually test it by observation or experiment. If it's falsified, it gets thrown out or modified in some way.

Only hypotheses that have been extensively tested and passed those tests become scientific theories, i.e. actual (tentative) conclusions of science.

 

[Audie]

It is just that I can't think of a way for someone to know what happened in another room (verifiably) when their bodies were not functioning without their spirit having gone there and having seen what happened as they report.
I think there are people who don't want the plain answer.
I accept that science has to be thorough but to disregard the evidence (anecdotal as it is) is not scientific.



I have been told that, but the way the science gets to the public certainly looks like it has found proof for things.

You say verified, I say not.
That would be a verified miracle.
Anecdote equals not verificstion.

There are anecdotal reports for mermaids
and Bigfoot. All sorts of miracles, anecdotverification.
Not one supernatural event has ever been
shown to be true, ever.

If one wants to believe, that does not matter.
Wanting to believe leads straight to confirmation
bias, intellectual dishonesty,


As for proof / science, the qua,ity of reporting
on, say, yahoo News is at fault, not science.
Yahoo also says scientists report finding Noah's ark, which is just garbage.

For confirmed out of body or "proof in science"
you have the same problem with unreliable
sources.

Near-Death Experiences: In or out of the Body? | Skeptical Inquirer

 

[Brian2]

This looks like a profound misunderstanding. The only place in science for what might be called 'guessing' is when you first come up with some new idea that might be the answer to some problem. You must then turn it into a testable and falsifiable hypothesis and actually test it by observation or experiment. If it's falsified, it gets thrown out or modified in some way.

Only hypotheses that have been extensively tested and passed those tests become scientific theories, i.e. actual (tentative) conclusions of science.

I have been told this before but the "tentative" does not come over in the publishing to the public and even scientists claim many theories as factual and use them against religion.
And what you said does not mean that in parts of science where there is a clash with religion the whole idea of naturalistic methodology may barking up the wrong tree and lead to naturalistic conclusions which, at the most, only tell part of the story.