Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[Escéptico]

What is "pretend rationale"? (for 2,000 points)

Old school kinda guy that I am, I always thought of 'evidence' as needing to be verifiable in some objective way. Not any more! In the new thinking, the sky's the limit. Claim to have had a weird experience, a nice feeling, or a psychotic episode? That's evidence! Any rationale for any proposition at all qualifies as evidence supporting that proposition, whether it's true or pretend or whatever.

 

[Willamena]

Old school kinda guy that I am, I always thought of 'evidence' as needing to be verifiable in some objective way. Not any more! In the new thinking, the sky's the limit. Claim to have had a weird experience, a nice feeling, or a psychotic episode? That's evidence! Any rationale for any proposition at all qualifies as evidence supporting that proposition, whether it's true or pretend or whatever.

This "pretending" is not what is being argued, though. What I saw argued was faith that the data interpreted through senses is reliable.

"Empirical" means somethign capable of being confirmed or denied by the senses. Empirical evidence is gathered through the touch, sight, sound, taste, smell, or equipment to do the job for us, and recorded as data. A physical limitation like blindness requires an individual to take sighted things on faith. Empirical data is not independent of the observer any more than it records itself in notebooks.

Along with that intregral component of observer, it gains a quality of interpretation --is it 3 meters? or is it 3.011 meters? or 2.98 meters? Whatever is satisfactory for the purposes of the experiment is its value. Once an experiment is duplicated a few thousand times to the satisfaction of a few, it is widely accepted by others as something on which to develop their own experiments. They don't repeat the experiment again, but take it on faith. Multiply that by a thousand experimenters and you have a thousand more opportunities for inaccuracies to be duplicated, and for cultural and philosophical bias to predetermine results.

In the end, scientific objectivity boils down to a consensus of opinion; but even so, there is no evidence that is not evident "to us" (subjectively).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the end, scientific objectivity boils down to a consensus of opinion; but even so, there is no evidence that is not evident "to us" (subjectively).

It has been suggested that science seeks not objectivity but intersubjective verifiability.

 

[Magic Man]

This "pretending" is not what is being argued, though. What I saw argued was faith that the data interpreted through senses is reliable.

"Empirical" means somethign capable of being confirmed or denied by the senses. Empirical evidence is gathered through the touch, sight, sound, taste, smell, or equipment to do the job for us, and recorded as data. A physical limitation like blindness requires an individual to take sighted things on faith. Empirical data is not independent of the observer any more than it records itself in notebooks.

Along with that intregral component of observer, it gains a quality of interpretation --is it 3 meters? or is it 3.011 meters? or 2.98 meters? Whatever is satisfactory for the purposes of the experiment is its value. Once an experiment is duplicated a few thousand times to the satisfaction of a few, it is widely accepted by others as something on which to develop their own experiments. They don't repeat the experiment again, but take it on faith. Multiply that by a thousand experimenters and you have a thousand more opportunities for inaccuracies to be duplicated, and for cultural and philosophical bias to predetermine results.

In the end, scientific objectivity boils down to a consensus of opinion; but even so, there is no evidence that is not evident "to us" (subjectively).

Ah, the cavalry. Thank you for stating it as I couldn't. This is very well said, and I'll have to frubal you later after I frubal someone else.

 

[Escéptico]

Willamena,

I don't dispute the subjectivity of empirical observations. I never claimed that empirical data is independent of the observer.

What I did say was this:

"Empirical evidential inquiry is supposed to take all the incomplete, flawed, prejudiced observations and come up with a statistically viable model of a phenomenon. The more people who are involved with the researching, testing, and refining process in history, now, and in the future, the less any individual set of cognitive biases will affect the reliability of the outcome."

As Jay pointed out, this isn't really objectivity but 'intersubjective verifiability.'

 

[Willamena]

It has been suggested that science seeks not objectivity but intersubjective verifiability.

That is my understanding, too.

 

[logician]

This "pretending" is not what is being argued, though. What I saw argued was faith that the data interpreted through senses is reliable.

"Empirical" means somethign capable of being confirmed or denied by the senses. Empirical evidence is gathered through the touch, sight, sound, taste, smell, or equipment to do the job for us, and recorded as data. A physical limitation like blindness requires an individual to take sighted things on faith. Empirical data is not independent of the observer any more than it records itself in notebooks.

Along with that intregral component of observer, it gains a quality of interpretation --is it 3 meters? or is it 3.011 meters? or 2.98 meters? Whatever is satisfactory for the purposes of the experiment is its value. Once an experiment is duplicated a few thousand times to the satisfaction of a few, it is widely accepted by others as something on which to develop their own experiments. They don't repeat the experiment again, but take it on faith. Multiply that by a thousand experimenters and you have a thousand more opportunities for inaccuracies to be duplicated, and for cultural and philosophical bias to predetermine results.

In the end, scientific objectivity boils down to a consensus of opinion; but even so, there is no evidence that is not evident "to us" (subjectively).

What is your point, that scientific evidence is inaccurate, or unreliable, because humans are involved?

 

[Magic Man]

What is your point, that scientific evidence is inaccurate, or unreliable, because humans are involved?

Unreliable, yes. We know that our sensory perception can be wrong sometimes, which means that we can't trust what it tells us 100%. We have to allow for the possibility of error. It's reliabel enough to construct your reality around, but just not completely reliable.

The quotation "science seeks not objectivity but intersubjective verifiability" says that better than anything else I've seen.

 

[Willamena]

What is your point, that scientific evidence is inaccurate, or unreliable, because humans are involved?

Not at all, and I'd argue against anyone who made such an assertion.

My point was that faith is present even in science.

 

[Escéptico]

My point was that faith is present even in science.

You've certainly proven how different your perception is from reality.

 

[Magic Man]

You've certainly proven how different your perception is from reality.

She has certainly proven how different her perception is from your "reality" (read your perception).

 

[Escéptico]

She has certainly proven how different her perception is from your "reality" (read your perception).

Her comebacks are way better than yours.

 

[Magic Man]

Her comebacks are way better than yours.

Comebacks? I thought we were debating, not insulting each other. I was trying to point out the fact that reality is only people's perception of what is. You know reality as you have perceived it, therefore when you mention reality, the only thing you can mean is your version of it.

I will say, though, that you're right, Willamena's posts tend to be more enlightened than mine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was trying to point out the fact that reality is only people's perception of what is.

The 'fact' is that 'reality' is a word, a mapping, and ...

 

[Magic Man]

The 'fact' is that 'reality' is a word, a mapping, and ...

Yes, you're right. I try to avoid using that word "fact". I guess it just slipped.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, you're right. I try to avoid using that word "fact". I guess it just slipped.

Don't overlook the signature.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't think I'm saying anything profound, and that's why I can't understand why you don't get it. You're obviously intelligent, and this is not a revelation. I don't want to wave anything away. I believe in science. I believe that it is a good basis for our knowledge about the world. I'm just not deluded enough to think that it is infallible.

 

[Magic Man]

Don't overlook the signature.

What do you mean?

 

[Escéptico]

What is immature about what I've said? I don't think I'm saying anything profound, and that's why I can't understand why you don't get it. You're obviously intelligent, and this is not a revelation. I don't want to wave anything away. I believe in science. I believe that it is a good basis for our knowledge about the world. I'm just not deluded enough to think that it is infallible.

See if you can understand this, Matt. I keep saying we KNOW inductive inquiry doesn't prove anything, that's why it's so comical when you point out with such overweening self-importance that science "isn't 100% infallible." It's a program that benefits from more information, more observation, and more testing. It's not that any ONE set of observations tell the whole story, quite the contrary. The statistical inference conducted on the totality of the observations is what matters. Do you get that, Matt?

If you do, then why do you keep making irresponsible pronouncements about how "faith-based" scientific inquiry is? You're dismissing, in the most insulting and cavalier way, the legacy of empirical evidential inquiry by equating it with religion. Your dishonesty does a disservice to everyone whose efforts contributed to the picture of our universe we have today. These people deserve our respect, Matt, not to have their work disparaged by your narcissistic shell-games and endless equivocation.

 

[Magic Man]

See if you can understand this, Matt. I keep saying we KNOW inductive inquiry doesn't prove anything, that's why it's so comical when you point out with such overweening self-importance that science "isn't 100% infallible." It's a program that benefits from more information, more observation, and more testing. It's not that any ONE set of observations tell the whole story, quite the contrary. The statistical inference conducted on the totality of the observations is what matters. Do you get that, Matt?

If you do, then why do you keep making irresponsible pronouncements about how "faith-based" scientific inquiry is? You're dismissing, in the most insulting and cavalier way, the legacy of empirical evidential inquiry by equating it with religion. Your dishonesty does a disservice to everyone whose efforts contributed to the picture of our universe we have today. These people deserve our respect, Matt, not to have their work disparaged by your narcissistic shell-games and endless equivocation.

I see you still think it's productive to be condescending. If you like it that much, have at it.

How do you, in one sentence explain the idea that science is faith-based, and then, in the next sentence, claim it's not what you just described it as?

I never equated science with religion. All I've said is that they both require a certain amount of faith. You can say one takes more faith than the other, but that doesn't change the idea that they both need it on some level.

Why do you think it's an insult to say that something involves faith? I don't see it as insulting, just true. I don't see it as any more insulting than saying that you are male. You say yourself that science isn't infallible. If something is fallible, then to believe it's true takes belief. Do you disagree with that part? Is it just that you don't equate belief with faith? If so, then that's where we differ.