Science IS religion

[ratiocinator]

There are no privileged positive position for what objective reality really is and no right or wrong, because it is unknown.
It amounts to subjectivism in both cases, because in practice you can believe in your version of objective reality and I can believe in mine.

No - there are things we can reasonably deduce are probable from the information available to us by making a basic assumption that we are not a Boltzmann brain or in a virtual reality (and if anything like that is true, we can't know anything about reality anyway) and that what we perceive as the inescapable "external world" is what we are stuck with.

I think you may be confusing not being able to be 100% sure with having no reason at all to think one thing rather than another. That is not the case. Intersubjectivity is a way of formalising the fact that the "real world" is qualitatively different to all our other experiences and that it appears to be shared between us. Those things that can be intersubjectively verified are shared "truths". That's why they are logically different from, and distinguishable from, the purely subjective.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is a fact that you subjectively can go with Popper and I can go religious and there is no way to find an universal standard for deciding that.

Intersubjectivity is such a standard - that's what it means. It means that it doesn't matter who makes the observation or does whatever verification is needed (practical considerations aside), and it doesn't matter what they believe about the result or what their subjective stance on it is.

It's the reason people manage to agree about the world and interact with each other within it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No - there are things we can reasonably deduce are probable from the information available to us by making a basic assumption that we are not a Boltzmann brain or in a virtual reality (and if anything like that is true, we can't know anything about reality anyway) and that what we perceive as the inescapable "external world" is what we are stuck with.

I think you may be confusing not being able to be 100% sure with having no reason at all to think one thing rather than another. That is not the case. Intersubjectivity is a way of formalising the fact that the "real world" is qualitatively different to all our other experiences and that it appears to be shared between us. Those things that can be intersubjectively verified are shared "truths". That's why they are logically different, and distinguishable from, the purely subjective.

That intersubjectivity has a limited. Because shared truths differ based on different understandings; i.e. limited cognitive, morality, cultural, subjective relativism.
As long as you don't accept it as "true" that I can believe in God in so far as you can do it "better", then we have no shared intersubjective standard in practice.
You and I reason differently and as long as you treat your intersubjectivity as for all, I won't stop.
Intersubjectively we can know this: You and I have different subjective worldviews. So as long as you want to determine with reason, logic and evidence for us all, I will continue.
Even if I am somehow unreasonable, illogical and without evidence to you, it is still a fact with evidence that I can do so. How is it a fact? You can observe it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Intersubjectivity is such a standard - that's what it means. It means that it doesn't matter who makes the observation or does whatever verification is needed (practical considerations aside), and it doesn't matter what they believe about the result or what their subjective stance on it is.

It's the reason people manage to agree about the world and interact with each other within it.

There is no universal, uniform, objective standard.

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

If you want it as an analogy, here it is: Imagine reality as a river where we are in several boats. As longs as no boats run on ground, the boats can be different places in the river. You assume your boat is that correct boat.
So is religion a fact and a part of how the world works? Remember to check your own assumptions(culture) and then check it using mine.
Until we can't agree that there is no universal, uniform, objective standard but rather a limited multitude of standards and no one to judge the others from, then this continues.

 

[dad]

The bible is wrong. The evidence is not.

You are wrong the evidence agrees with the bible. Believe what you like.

 

[dad]

Using testable and verifiable objective evidence instead of bronze age tales of makebelief.

Which is in your head, I do not see it in your posts. Enjoy your religion.

 

[dad]

This thread is certainly NOT about the origin science you keep parroting for no reason.

No such thing. Origins sciences are belief based and therefore not real science. They are falsely included and called science.
Yes the thread is about your beliefs.

I do not have faith, I have data and evidence. I have given you clear examples, logically consistent arguments, and relevant analogies, facts and evidence.

You have offered faith banged, off topic off base desperate attempts to defend your beliefs that you like to falsely call science.

Only a moron would assume that anything can be absolutely certain.

So you admit one would have to be a moron to accept what you say as fact rather than belief?

Only a moron would assume that anything could be absolutely right or wrong. Only a moron would assume that there is evidence for everything.

I agree that you have no evidence. The question is why have you pretended you did?

Only a moron would use absolutes only to support their arguments.

Are you absolutely certain of that? If so I guess that makes you...a....

Most non-moronic people operate in a reality under the principle of "degrees of certainty".

To pseudo science folks that just means the only certainty is to reject God and creation at all costs and without reason.

This means that the degree of certainty is directly proportional to the amount of objective evidence supporting it. Zero evidence, zero degree of certainty.

Since no evidence of a same nature in the past was offered, and no evidence that time in the far universe is the same as earth time, your pseudo science religion has no certainty.

Some objective evidence, some degree of certainty. Massive amount of evidence, massive amount of certainty. Infinite amount of objective evidence, ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Only a God has absolute certainty. Most non-moronic people agree that in this Universe, for every effect there is a cause(s). We also accept that near enough is good enough. And, if it works, it works.

Just because there are causes doe not mean your religion knows them. In fact I suggest origin sciences specialize in explanations that avoid the actual cause at any cost. That is fanaticism.

Science is evolving, reviving, and changing, as new information, better tools, and data become available.

In other words when false prophesy and lies get busted they constantly scramble for new stories.

No one is arguing whether the science itself is the same today, as it was in the past.

True, so why mention it?

This claim is self-evident. Your claim was that the fundamental forces in nature were different in the past, on earth and in deep space. Still no evidence or examples so far.

You do not seem capable enough to admit that science uses a belief that nature was the same. To be clear, the issue in deep space is time, and whether it is now the same as time on earth or not. That is a separate issue to what the forces of nature were like on earth at the dawn of creation. Origin sciences try to use the billions of years of time they derive from a belief time is the same in all the universe, to justify or back up old age claims for earth! Circular. 'See, we know earth is old, because we see old stuff out in the universe and it seems the same here to us'!

It is you that made the claim that the natural forces of Nature were different in the past, because the Bible tells you so.

There are two claims here. My claim is belief based, and also fits all scientific evidences and history and Scripture!

Your claim is belief based, and you are trying to sell it as 'science'! You bear the burden of proof. Otherwise your claims will remain relegated to beliefs.

Lurkers: understand why the poster must avoid trying to prove the very basis used in all models of the past by origin sciences, he cannot do so. I is a desperate flailing about we see here, trying to avoid truth at all costs.

Even a moron doesn't try to validate one fantasy with another fantasy.

Actually I just showed how so called sciences do try to validate old age claims about earth with the fantasies and beliefs they grab from the heavens! By your standards they do not even rank beings morons! I tend to agree. So does God actually and calls them 'fools'. 'The fool has said in his heart, there is n God'.

Fortunately science doesn't work this way. Do you really think we should base our scientific understanding on.......

I do think there must be basis. You have none but belief.

You are both science illiterates,

I actually know the real basis for psuedo science claims, and you cannot discuss it defend it, or even seem to comprehend it. So you pretend no one else grasps science. Knavish. I prefer religions with some class.

 

[dad]

Science is a way of producing models of the world that can make predictions of the results of future observations or experiments. It works very well and is objectively (intersubjectively) testable..

Let's look at some of those predictions.


"NASA’s Assistant Director of Science Michelle Thaller shockingly revealed how an unknown matter called “dark energy” could create an event known as the “Big Rip”, sparking the end of the universe."

NASA scientist predicts 'END of our universe' with shocking 'RIPPED APART' revelation



"Looking out at a night sky twinkling with distant light, it's a disturbing challenge to imagine that one day – far in the future – we will be alone in a dark empty universe. The rest of the universe will disappear before our very eyes."

Scientist Predicts A 'Miserable Future' For Our Universe


"“For a few brief instants, it will be 2,000 times as bright as it is now but that won't last for long.

“Eventually it'll shed its outer layers and all that will be left will be its cooling core, a faint cinder that will glow, well, pretty much to the end of time.”

Dr Cox explained why this could mean the end of life as we know it.

He continued: “And all its wonders, the aurora that danced through the atmospheres of planets of the Solar System, and its light that sustains all the life here on Earth, will be gone."

(image -- https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/im...ulfed-by-the-Sun-1969721.webp?r=1563625156098 )

End of the world: When NASA predicts Earth will be swallowed by raging gas ball

The prophesies of 'science' are demonic false prophesy!

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no universal, uniform, objective standard.

Yes there is - otherwise having a conversation like this would be impossible.

 

[ratiocinator]

The prophesies of 'science' are demonic false prophesy!

...he asserted, without the slightest hint of a smidgen of an iota of a scintilla of reasoning or evidence...

 

[gnostic]

Let's look at some of those predictions.


"NASA’s Assistant Director of Science Michelle Thaller shockingly revealed how an unknown matter called “dark energy” could create an event known as the “Big Rip”, sparking the end of the universe."

NASA scientist predicts 'END of our universe' with shocking 'RIPPED APART' revelation

The big rip isn’t a scientific theory. What it is, it is a theoretical model of possibilities, that to date have only some theoretical mathematical equations to predict such scenarios, but without evidences this model is deemed as theoretical assumptions. Nothing more, nothing less.

No evidences = not a scientific theory.

 

[dad]

...he asserted, without the slightest hint of a smidgen of an iota of a scintilla of reasoning or evidence...

I guess we can wait and see if your prophesies come true, or the bible's forecast.

I don't think you even know how the sun actually works. For example what the core of the sun is actually like.

 

[dad]

The big rip isn’t a scientific theory. What it is, it is a theoretical model of possibilities,

Based, on...what, class? Oh yes, scientific theories.

that to date have only some theoretical mathematical equations to predict such scenarios,

Math equations based on belief. Basically belief expressed in a math formula!

but without evidences this model is deemed as theoretical assumptions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Various versions of the sun and universe going dark stories are taught in a matter of fact way actually.

example

"In approximately 5 billion years, the sun will begin the helium-burning process, turning into a red giant star. When it expands, its outer layers will consume Mercury and Venus, and reach Earth. Scientists are still debating whether or not our planet will be engulfed, or whether it will orbit dangerously close to the dimmer star. Either way, life as we know it on Earth will cease to exist.

"A similar fate may await the inner planets in our solar system, when the sun becomes a red giant and expands all the way out to Earth's orbit some five billion years from now," astronomer Alex Wolszczan, an astronomer at Pennsylvania State University, said in a statement."

Red Giant Stars: Facts, Definition & the Future of the Sun

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes there is - otherwise having a conversation like this would be impossible.

No, words are not objective. If that was the case you could read this: Linear A and Linear B | script
You can't read linear-A, because the meaning is not in the words themselves. The meaning is not objective, it is subjective. We both have learned subjectively to do English and thus can form a shared subjectivity. Of course it passes through the objective part of reality.
So here is the relevant parts of objective in practice:
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
Definition of OBJECTIVE
Words are not in realm of sensible experience and perceptible of all observers.
Objective 2, also MW:
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
That there is an objective part of reality, is not all of reality or rather the world, because a part of the world are personal feelings and interpretations.
You have a personal interpretation of how to make sense of the world as such. It includes a certain understanding of facts. I start another place with facts. Is it a fact, that we can't remove personal feelings and interpretations? Yes. Is it a fact, that I as personal feelings and interpretations believe in God? Yes. Is that a part of the world? Yes.

I include subjectivity as valid for a person. You subjectively go for an objective standard. Note - you subjectively go for an objective standard.
I include in the word objective facts, intersubjective facts and subjective facts. You subjectively view facts differently.
Remember this:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

Facts are not just objective facts. If you see it differently and start differently, subjectivity is as much a fact as objective facts. Facts are not facts as such. What makes a fact a fact is a subjective rule.
Are there physical, objective parts of the world? Yes. Are these facts? Only according to a cultural rule to call them facts.
"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity."

So back to "There is no universal, uniform, objective standard," How you view facts, determine what you see. There is no universal, uniform, objective standard for this example: There are humans, who have been killed for being witches?
Are there witches? No, not according to an objective analyze, one version of a fact. Are there beliefs in witches? Yes, thus that is a fact, since we can observe it. The rule for it being a fact is subjective.
Now some people have subjective rule that only objective facts are facts. I have another subjective rule: All facts are facts, regardless of being objective, intersubjective or subjective.
When people say that beliefs in witches are not a case of a fact, they use a subjective rule for facts and treat it as objective.
So what is the universal, uniform, objective standard for what makes a fact a fact? A shared intersubjective rule, which can change because it is subjective.
A fact is a conceptual word and itself not perceptual. You can't see facts. You have a subjective rule for facts and how you treat facts depend on your rule for facts.

So back to my belief in a God. Depending on your rules in your head/brain you will evaluate that differently than me. I just point out that you use subjective rules for evaluating different aspects of the world. I do that too, I just admit it.

 

[siti]

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I get it, I suppose. Some of us including me "nitpick" words to the point of absurdity.

 

[siti]

I get it, I suppose. Some of us including me "nitpick" words to the point of absurdity.

Nah! Just checking in to see if any progress had been made since I was last here several pages back...it hadn't.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, words are not objective.

That's not what I meant. What is objective (intersubjectively verifiable) is that you have written the the string of symbols "No, words are not objective." on a specific internet forum. Anybody with access to the forum can verify that - it doesn't matter what they think or believe or what their cultural background is.

Similarly, if I talk about trees, you aren't going to think I'm talking about tigers. If we were together we could agree whether we were standing on sand or a carpet.

Of course it passes through the objective part of reality.

Exactly, that's what I'm talking about: the everyday world of houses, bicycles, zebras, mountains, watermelons, and so on.

Science is a methodology that allows us to build detailed models of that world and, as a result, and amongst other things, we can make technology that works for everybody independently of their beliefs, feelings, or culture. Computers, trains, bridges, and tractors don't stop working if you don't believe in science behind them. The GPS system works for flat-earthers just as well as it does for everybody else.

All these things are objective (in the sense of being intersubjectively verifiable). To mangle a Philip K. Dick quote: objectivity is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

 

[ratiocinator]

I guess we can wait and see if your prophesies come true, or the bible's forecast.

You'll have to wait a long time - but whatever. Still no hint of actual evidence or reasoning to back up your claim, I see.

I don't think you even know how the sun actually works. For example what the core of the sun is actually like.

The models of the sun are based on evidence and observation. What your your assertions based on?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The rest of your post are of minor importance. I apologize if being uncivil and so on. But the meat is there.
Objective reality is a belief.
Read up on a Boltzmann Brain and read here:

If a subjective belief being "accurate" / "correct" doesn't mean that it corresponds to objective reality, then the words "accurate" and "correct" are meaningless.

That's what the words mean. To match (objective) reality. That's what "true" is. That's what "accurate" means.

"If I jump from the Empire State building without technology, I'll plummet to my death. I'll accelerate towards earth at a spead of 9.81 meters per second per second, corrected by resistance, and I'll smash into the ground."

"If I jump from the Empire State building without technology, I'll just keep floating midair and be able to descend at a comfy pace making sure of a soft landing."

One of these statements, which I guess you would call subjective, does not correspond to the objective reality of how gravity works. One of these statement is thus not accurate, as it does not match objective reality.