What do you need scientific evidence for . .?

[painted wolf]

I personally like to know that the medication I take has been tested scientifically to show it's effective and so I know any risks in taking it.

But I'm silly that way. I just can't put my faith in the idea that drilling holes in my head will let the demons out and leaches will balance my humors.

wa:do

 

[Tristesse]

It has been made clear and evident that people who are non-religious always ask for and request evidence.

How come . .?

Because some of us actually care whether or not our beliefs are true or more likely to be true. And the way to determine that, is with evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

Because some of us actually care whether or not our beliefs are true or more likely to be true. And the way to determine that, is with evidence.

Wins thread, FWIW.

 

[Willamena]

Because some of us actually care whether or not our beliefs are true or more likely to be true. And the way to determine that, is with evidence.

That blatently defies what a belief is.

Ask yourself, "Is this thing true?" and if the answer is "Yes," then you do believe it. If the answer is, "Hold on, I have to go devise a scientific test to research this thing and find conclusive evidence," then you don't have "beliefs."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That blatently defies what a belief is.

Ask yourself, "Is this thing true?" and if the answer is "Yes," then you do believe it. If the answer is, "Hold on, I have to go devise a scientific test to research this thing and find conclusive evidence," then you don't have "beliefs."

Whether or not you have beliefs is a separate question from judging the quality of those beliefs.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

...uh, what?

I'm thinking the exact same thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That blatently defies what a belief is.

Ask yourself, "Is this thing true?" and if the answer is "Yes," then you do believe it. If the answer is, "Hold on, I have to go devise a scientific test to research this thing and find conclusive evidence," then you don't have "beliefs."

A belief can be defined as anything a person holds to be true, in the broad sense. But, as you rightly observe, not all beliefs are created equal, and there are certainly degrees to which describing a point of view merely as a "belief" is insufficient.

The real question is why is it okay to hold something as being true without having evidence of it? Why is belief self-justifying with regards to religion, but not self-justifying when it comes to, say, politics?

 

[Willamena]

Whether or not you have beliefs is a separate question from judging the quality of those beliefs.

That's just it --you don't have beliefs to judge the quality of if you don't believe it.

If you're saying you're judging the quality of someone else's beliefs, then you've invested far too much effort already on a futile endeavor.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's just it --you don't have beliefs to judge the quality of if you don't believe it.

Whether or not you believe that X is true or false, you can investigate whether it actually is true or false. The results of this investigation will inform your beliefs; I don't see how this implies that it takes away your beliefs.

If you're saying you're judging the quality of someone else's beliefs, then you've invested far too much effort already on a futile endeavor.

Depends on the context.

I don't think it's futile to, say, investigate whether the beliefs of homeopathy supporters are true. If they are true and homeopathy is effective, I want it to be used to provide people with benefit. If they're not true and homeopathy is ineffective, I don't want my tax funds wasted paying for it.

 

[Willamena]

Whether or not you believe that X is true or false, you can investigate whether it actually is true or false. The results of this investigation will inform your beliefs; I don't see how this implies that it takes away your beliefs.

That's not an example of a belief being investigated, that's a fact being invested.

Depends on the context.

I don't think it's futile to, say, investigate whether the beliefs of homeopathy supporters are true. If they are true and homeopathy is effective, I want it to be used to provide people with benefit. If they're not true and homeopathy is ineffective, I don't want my tax funds wasted paying for it.

Again, that's facts being investigated.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's not an example of a belief being investigated, that's a fact being invested.

It's an example of finding out whether a belief is correct or incorrect.

Again, that's facts being investigated.

See above.

What is the difference between investigating a "fact" and investigating a "belief", in your opinion?

 

[Willamena]

It's an example of finding out whether a belief is correct or incorrect.


See above.

What is the difference between investigating a "fact" and investigating a "belief", in your opinion?

You tell me: are "fact" and "belief" synonymous?

 

[Tristesse]

That blatently defies what a belief is.

Ask yourself, "Is this thing true?" and if the answer is "Yes," then you do believe it. If the answer is, "Hold on, I have to go devise a scientific test to research this thing and find conclusive evidence," then you don't have "beliefs."

No it doesn't. There are different quantities of evidence for every claim. For instance, if you told be you had a pet bird, I could believe you just at face value, because the claim is not that significant. I could still be wrong, but changing my belief on that claim has no impact on my life. However, if you told me you had a fire breathing dragon as a pet, I would require much more evidence than just your say so. And now my belief on that subject is disbelief until substantial evidence is brought forth.

Almost everyone has beliefs. I believe that the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, therefore, I believe evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life. I have that belief based on scientific evidence. And I don't think it's unfair to require the same type of evidentiary standards for every claim, especially outlandish claims.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You tell me: are "fact" and "belief" synonymous?

No. Belief is what you hold to be true, facts are what really is true.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that your disagreement amounts to whether investigating facts is the same thing as investigating beliefs.

Willamena, if I understood her correctly, is saying that some beliefs are, so to speak, immune to the truth about facts, and in a sense beyond refutation. It is less a matter of being true or false then of being too subjective to be so classified.

 

[Willamena]

No it doesn't. There are different quantities of evidence for every claim. For instance, if you told be you had a pet bird, I could believe you just at face value, because the claim is not that significant. I could still be wrong, but changing my belief on that claim has no impact on my life. However, if you told me you had a fire breathing dragon as a pet, I would require much more evidence than just your say so. And now my belief on that subject is disbelief until substantial evidence is brought forth.

Technically, and skeptically, what you should be believing in the above example is that I have said I have a pet bird. And yes, you'll compare it to your version of how the world works (i.e. asking yourself, "Is this true?") in order to form a belief of your own regarding whether I reasonably and actually do have a bird, or a dragon. Until you meet my bird, though, or see some evidence of it, investing in the idea that I, in truth, do have a pet bird is taking what I say entirely on faith.

All beliefs, I think, should be held in the same regard, since, for each of us, they uphold the truth of the world.

Almost everyone has beliefs. I believe that the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, therefore, I believe evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life. I have that belief based on scientific evidence. And I don't think it's unfair to require the same type of evidentiary standards for every claim, especially outlandish claims.

It's not unreasonable to require such a standard for facts, that thing in which we are investing belief. But belief itself is an extremely simple idea: Is it true?

 

[LuisDantas]

All beliefs, I think, should be held in the same regard, since, for each of us, they uphold the truth of the world.

If by regard you mean consideration for their emotional impact, agreed.

But on the other hand, for that very same reason, one is expected to take reasonable care to calibrate his own beliefs with the available facts, don't you agree?

It is common, yet IMO morally wrong, to purposely neglect that responsibility.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Technically, and skeptically, what you should be believing in the above example is that I have said I have a pet bird.

When somebody says they have a pet bird, you can assume that they have said it. If knowledge were so loose weave nobody would know which way to get out of bed in the morning.

And yes, you'll compare it to your version of how the world works (i.e. asking yourself, "Is this true?") in order to form a belief of your own regarding whether I reasonably and actually do have a bird, or a dragon. Until you meet my bird, though, or see some evidence of it, investing in the idea that I, in truth, do have a pet bird is taking what I say entirely on faith.

No, he's not. Taking somebody's word that they have a bird is not accepting it on faith, because having birds is very common, and that person would have very little reason to assume that you are being dishonest. It's based on past experience, basic logical deduction and the fact that whether or not you have a bird is of little to no actual relevance to the world as a whole. In other words, having a bird or not having a bird is not a significant enough claim to warrant a thorough investigation. Having a dragon, on the other hand, is.

All beliefs, I think, should be held in the same regard, since, for each of us, they uphold the truth of the world.

So you think the belief that murder is wrong should be held in the same regard as the belief that murdering homosexuals is acceptable?

Do you also hold that believing science (in the general sense of the word "belief") should be held in the same regard as believing in the tooth fairy?

It's not unreasonable to require such a standard for facts, that thing in which we are investing belief. But belief itself is an extremely simple idea: Is it true?

Not all claims are created equal. A claim which is demonstrably true is better (or at least more useful) than a claim that is not demonstrably true or demonstrably false.

If by regard you mean consideration for their emotional impact, agreed.

But on the other hand, for that very same reason, one is expected to take reasonable care to calibrate his own beliefs with the available facts, don't you agree?

It is common, yet IMO morally wrong, to purposely neglect that responsibility.

Agreed. If "sin" were a valid concept, I would count that as the highest.

 

[tomato1236]

What do you need scientific evidence for . .?

So that athiests have something to believe.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm thinking the exact same thing.

As in, what "moot point" are you talking about?