What We Thought

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you believe that religion "in the face of contradictory evidence doubles down and refuses to correct itself"?
Have you seen this in all religion?
If not, why do you generalize?

He said often. Don't do a straw man.

 

[Jose Fly]

What does that mean to you, and what does it imply?

That science is an ongoing process of accumulating data, analyzing it, and reaching conclusions.

So that you understand what I mean, please read this article. Thanks.

The article is just an example, to highlight the fact that scientists often think things which they later realize is not correct.

I am really asking when you hear or read that clause - the title - in relation to certain things scientists believe, and claim, what does that mean to you, and what does it imply?
If you are a scientist, I would also like to hear from you on this question.

This puts me in mind of how, when I was a kid, I would sit in church and be completely baffled by what I saw going on in front of me. Almost none of it made any sense to me, and whenever I'd ask folks to explain what they were doing and why, their answers didn't make sense to me either.

IOW, the religious way of thinking and reaching conclusions just did not resonate with me at all.

Threads like this make me think some religious folks have the same reactions when looking at science. Just as I was baffled by religious thinking, some religious people are equally baffled by scientific thinking.

nPeace, you've been around this topic many, many times before and it seems to me that you still don't get it. You still cannot wrap your mind around scientific thinking, nuances, probabilities rather than absolute certainty, and things not being "proven".

So after all the years of you trying to understand those things and asking countless people to explain them to you, all to no avail, do you think it's safe to conclude that the scientific way of thinking is simply something you cannot relate to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are all beliefs equal as they get the same result in the same case? Start there.

 

[nPeace]

Then everything is a belief, because proof is based on beliefs, if you understand how proof works. But not all belief are exactly the same, though they are equal for the category of belonging to the set of beliefs.

Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Can you put this on the bulletin board for all the atheists here to read?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Can you put this on the bulletin board for all the atheists here to read?

Well, again read this:
What We Thought

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Can you put this on the bulletin board for all the atheists here to read?

You don't understand science and I am an atheist.
Proof and evidence are not the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you believe that religion "in the face of contradictory evidence doubles down and refuses to correct itself"?
Have you seen this in all religion?
If not, why do you generalize?

Sounds like you missed the word "often" in my post.

 

[nPeace]

Are all beliefs equal as they get the same result in the same case? Start there.

Obviously not.
Some children believe in Santa Clause coming down the chimney and filling their stockings with goodies.
Well, at least those with chimneys.
Not because they actually saw it, but they were told this, and ... but wait! They had evidence that Santa was in the house, and Santa brought them what they wanted, after reading their letter... even though they never saw him do those things.

Everything looks like they fit the circumstances perfectly.
Wait a minute.

Is that how science works?
Is that why their beliefs change?

That's different to believing that a dog was in your house, if you see paw prints of mud on your floor,

and poo,

and maybe fur, etc.

Is that how science works?
Is that why their findings don't change?

 

[nPeace]

You don't understand science and I am an atheist.
Proof and evidence are not the same.

I understand science. Typical response - attack the poster's intelligence.
I know you are not an atheist. You already said that.
I know proof and evidence are not the same. I have said that on these forums more than once.

 

[nPeace]

"A conclusion" would work.

When it's wrong, it's still a wrong conclusion. It's still a wrong thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When it's wrong, it's still a wrong conclusion. It's still a wrong thought.

Yes... and?

 

[nPeace]

He said often. Don't do a straw man.

I asked a question... for clarity. Nothing more.

 

[nPeace]

Yes... and?

Back to the OP.
What We Thought
is still what we believed - concluded.

 

[ChristineM]

A conclusion is still a belief, and when it's wrong, it's a wrong belief, or conclusion.

So you are walking along the road and see $10 lying in the gutter. You pick it up, look around for someone who may have dropped it. No one about, so the conclusion... you are now $10 richer.

Walk around the corner and wow, another $10 and no one to ask if they have dropped anything. Conclusion you are now a total of $20 richer.

So what is the final conclusion here?

Do you throw the second $10 away because it messes with your first conclusion or do you update your conclusion to take account of the new evidence of a second $10 bill.

Now do you understand?

 

[nPeace]

Sounds like you missed the word "often" in my post.

Nope.
You said "OTOH, religion is often quite incorrect, but in the face of contradictory evidence doubles down and refuses to correct itself".

That does not say some religions.
Surely you understand the difference, don't you??

 

[nPeace]

So you are walking along the road and see $10 lying in the gutter. You pick it up, look around for someone who may have dropped it. No one about, so the conclusion... you are now $10 richer.

Walk around the corner and wow, another $10 and no one to ask if they have dropped anything. Conclusion you are now a total of $20 richer.

So what is the final conclusion here?

Do you throw the second $10 away because it messes with your first conclusion or do you update your conclusion to take account of the new evidence of a second $10 bill.

Now do you understand?

No need to reach a conclusion here.
That's like passing gas, and concluding you passed gas.
You know.

Now you are picked up by the cops for having stolen money, and you realize your expectation were dashed, and you are back to knowing that you are 20 dollars short... or more..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Back to the OP.
What We Thought
is still what we believed - concluded.

And?

 

[Jose Fly]

@nPeace I want to check before I bother any more. Do you have me on ignore, and that's why you've responded to everyone else's post, but not mine?

 

[nPeace]

And?

...and therefore, "a conclusion" does not work as a replacement for "belief".
They are still correcting a belief.

...and... you answered my question.
Peace

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace I want to check before I bother any more. Do you have me on ignore, and that's why you've responded to everyone else's post, but not mine?

I have not put you on ignore, Fly, but I am not responding to repeated questions that have already been asked, and answered, and which are just comments about me, rather than discussion on anything related to the OP, or posts related to it, but rather bait for you to begin discussing nPeace with other users.
Oops.