Why one must believe the "Academia" or the "scholars"?

[paarsurrey]

Science is based on deductive reasoning from repeated observations. We aren't going to be around long enough to see a star's full life cycle. But given the little snippets of life of the billions of stars around us, and what we know about physics, we could postulate theories about what we are seeing. If it doesn't conflict with physics, or better yet, if it actually is supported by physics, we'd be like.. hey that looks pretty good. If we saw something that conflicted with the theory, or totally contradicted it, we'd investigate what it was or redo the entire theory to accommodate for the new facts.
People do the best with what they got.
Which is pretty impressive, considering we had ideas about Pluto being pretty dead, but when we sent satellites there to test things that would prove and/or disprove some of these theories, it was quickly discovered there is more going on there then we knew.
The more observations, the more experiments, the more data, the better we understand the phenomenon.
Experience is the premise for... learning...

You mean Astronomy is not covered in scientific method the way that covers physics? It has its own norms.
Similarly Mathematics is not covered in scientific method the way that covers physics.
And experiments have now been changed to experience and experience is way greater/better than experiment.
What about Psychology, is it covered in the scientific method the way physics is covered? Please
Regards

 

[dust1n]

You mean Astronomy is not covered in scientific method the way that covers physics? It has its own norms.

I don't believe in any particular method. What draws them together, is like I said, deductive reasoning based on empiricism. We know deductive reasoning works pretty well, because it's the underlying logical base that your computer operates on. And we know things that we can observe is pretty way of learning about. No religion informed us as how to transplant an organ. But deductive reasoning based on repeatable. empirical evidence has.

Similarly Mathematics is not covered in scientific method the way that covers physics.
And experiments have now been changed to experience and experience is way greater/better than experiment.
What about Psychology, is it covered in the scientific method the way physics is covered? Please
Regards

Seeing how science encourages the study of every single facet of existence, yea, psychologists can do experiments that yield facts that give insight into how humans go about their business. Math is different because from basic rules that we presume to be true, we can proof all sorts of things with number. This is more a math than a philosophy. Same for logic. It's the study of formal languages and drawing conclusions from rules.

 

[Revoltingest]

....Mathematics is not covered in scientific method the way that covers physics.

Not to argue the point, but math can be approached much the same as a posteriori areas of knowledge.
Hypotheses can be explored experimentally, with computers greatly enabling this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_mathematics
Weird & interesting, eh?

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't believe in any particular method. What draws them together, is like I said, deductive reasoning based on empiricism. We know deductive reasoning works pretty well, because it's the underlying logical base that your computer operates on. And we know things that we can observe is pretty way of learning about. No religion informed us as how to transplant an organ. But deductive reasoning based on repeatable. empirical evidence has.

Seeing how science encourages the study of every single facet of existence, yea, psychologists can do experiments that yield facts that give insight into how humans go about their business. Math is different because from basic rules that we presume to be true, we can proof all sorts of things with number. This is more a math than a philosophy. Same for logic. It's the study of formal languages and drawing conclusions from rules.

Religion is not for this purpose. The truthful Religion is for guidance of man in ethical, moral and spiritual domains. People put their own expectations on religion, that religion never claims to have. Religion has kept humans free for research in material and physical domains . On the one hand they want free hand on the other hands they don't want to have it.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The academia and are scholars are humans just like others; why should one not be sceptic to what they say and believe them blindly? Please
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Mathematics is a language according to what? science?
Regards

It is a "language" according to the meaning of the term "language". "Science" is not an entity, so it doesn't demand or approve anything. The scientific method is merely a tool/process for using verifiable evidence/experiments to better understand the universe in which we live.

 

[leibowde84]

Science itself is a tool and without mathematics science can do nothing. Mathematics is not dependent on science or scientific method, it works irrespective of science.
So every knowledge has its own system. So is the truthful revealed religion, it has its own system to prove and disprove things in ethical, moral and spiritual realms.
Regards

Can you provide an example of the "truthful revealed religion" "proving and disproving thing in ethical, moral and spiritual realms"?

 

[leibowde84]

Religion is not for this purpose. The truthful Religion is for guidance of man in ethical, moral and spiritual domains. People put their own expectations on religion, that religion never claims to have. Religion has kept humans free for research in material and physical domains . On the one hand they want free hand on the other hands they don't want to have it.

Regards

So is it a tool to "prove" things in these realms, or merely give "guidance" in these realms? They are vastly different things.

 

[leibowde84]

You mean Astronomy is not covered in scientific method the way that covers physics? It has its own norms.

Actually, the scientific method of collecting data and using experimentation to support a theory is the same for Astronomy as it is for Physics. Obviously the methods of conducting said experiments are different, but that doesn't mean that it isn't still utilizing the scientific method.

And experiments have now been changed to experience and experience is way greater/better than experiment.

This is so wrong that it is scary. Subjective experience is so often unreliable/faulty that it is not fit to be used as evidence. Time and time again our personal experiences have been proven to be inaccurate due to our brain's ability to alter our perception of reality. THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS TO OVERCOME THE IMPERFECTIONS THAT PLAGUE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES.

 

[LuisDantas]

This topic is in essence asking whether it is possible or worthwhile for human beings to attempt to learn about the world.

 

[leibowde84]

The academia and are scholars are humans just like others; why should one not be sceptic to what they say and believe them blindly? Please
Regards

Who said anything about believing anyone blindly. That seems to be nothing more than a straw man. We believe the scholars/experts because the evidence that they base their theories on is readily available to us. So, we are skeptical, but our skepticism is satisfied by the evidence.

 

[Augustus]

The academia and are scholars are humans just like others; why should one not be sceptic to what they say and believe them blindly? Please
Regards

You should be sceptical, that doesn't mean you should reject them out of hand though.

Scholars lie and falsify information out of personal interest. They display bias. They make mistakes. They use flawed methodologies. They draw false conclusions. They make tentative hypotheses due to insufficient evidence.

You evaluate each argument/theory on its merits though. It's even possible for a scholar to be totally wrong in their conclusions, yet to advance knowledge through being partially correct in their method.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Scholars lie and falsify information out of personal interest. They display bias. They make mistakes. They use flawed methodologies. They draw false conclusions. They make tentative hypotheses due to insufficient evidence.

Indeed they do. The challenge is to have sufficient knowledge of their area so that you can tell when they are doing it.

 

[paarsurrey]

You should be sceptical, that doesn't mean you should reject them out of hand though.
Scholars lie and falsify information out of personal interest. They display bias. They make mistakes. They use flawed methodologies. They draw false conclusions. They make tentative hypotheses due to insufficient evidence.
You evaluate each argument/theory on its merits though. It's even possible for a scholar to be totally wrong in their conclusions, yet to advance knowledge through being partially correct in their method.

That is what I do. I don't follow them blindly not even my family physician if I am not convinced with what they say. I know that that Academia and Scholars could be wrong. I also know they could never be 100% correct. If one scholar or one of the Academia could make one mistake then millions of them could make millions of mistakes even with their conclusive or consensus accords, if they ever had.
You have written excellent points in what I have coloured in magenta and underlined them also. I appreciate it.
Thanks and regards

 

[leibowde84]

That is what I do. I don't follow them blindly not even my family physician if I am not convinced with what they say. I know that that Academia and Scholars could be wrong. I also know they could never be 100% correct. If one scholar or one of the Academia could make one mistake then millions of them could make millions of mistakes even with their conclusive or consensus accords, if they ever had.
You have written excellent points in what I have coloured in magenta and underlined them also. I appreciate it.
Thanks and regards

"You evaluate each argument/theory on its merits though. It's even possible for a scholar to be totally wrong in their conclusions, yet to advance knowledge through being partially correct in their method."

Do you feel that this applies to how you treat your religious beliefs? Scriptural accuracy? Who wrote the Quran? Etc.?

 

[paarsurrey]

"You evaluate each argument/theory on its merits though. It's even possible for a scholar to be totally wrong in their conclusions, yet to advance knowledge through being partially correct in their method."
Do you feel that this applies to how you treat your religious beliefs? Scriptural accuracy? Who wrote the Quran? Etc.?

Is an Artist bound to evaluate each argument/theory of Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Biology and etc, etc, etc. I do what is essential for my life. I am an ordinary person in the street with no claims of any scholarship or piety whatsoever. I need not do all that.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Is an Artist bound to evaluate each argument/theory of Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Biology and etc, etc, etc. I do what is essential for my life. I am an ordinary person in the street with no claims of any scholarship or piety whatsoever. I need not do all that.
Regards

So, you don't evaluate religious claims on their own merit?

 

[cambridge79]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

No one will ever tell you YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE the academics. In fact what you have to do is keep challenging them for the whole system to work and knowledge to evolve.

But still they are the experts so if you can't show they re wrong, or can't provide better explanations than them their opinions on their subject of knowledge should be taken into account more than yours or mine for the same reason I would ask help to a plumber and not to a gardener when my faucet is broken.

Problem is you are not able to do that because there are rules to follow that you reject, first of them it doesn't count what you believe or not believe but what you can prove or disprove.

Its like me going to husain bolt telling him "I believe im faster than you"
Than he says "well lets do a race"
And i go "I strongly believe im faster than you so I dont need to race to know it" or "i saw you once walking in the street, you looked slow in faster than that"
That won't make me faster than him, but just deluded.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Do you trust a Muslim scholar if he told you that i see that Islam is the right path to heaven ?

It must provide proof
The road to heaven how to be ??
Does it have to be a suicide bomber ???
Or jihadist ???
Is faith a man named Mohammed was born in the desert Arabs ???
It is the way to heaven to be with the wives of slaves and with the concubines of the **** out of wedlock
That enables the Muslim jurist of the answers to these questions then I could make the right decision

 

[FearGod]

It must provide proof
The road to heaven how to be ??
Does it have to be a suicide bomber ???
Or jihadist ???
Is faith a man named Mohammed was born in the desert Arabs ???
It is the way to heaven to be with the wives of slaves and with the concubines of the **** out of wedlock
That enables the Muslim jurist of the answers to these questions then I could make the right decision

I think the best way for your heaven is to drink much alcohol and many prostitutes and girlfriends.
The best thing is to love Jesus according to your belief and to believe that he died for you.