Equating science with faith

Good morning tesla: You are right , tesla. Cogito ergo sum, all else is tentative. Few here would not except that as the lone tenet of existence. However, if we stop there, how useful is that? It is possible that all else is delusion. But as far as anyone has been able to determine, which itself could be a delusion, is that every delusion folks seem to be having seems to be very consistent in the things we call empirical. If one were to set up a procession in the dark to walk across a living room they will all report a coffee table in the shin. To deny the coffee table as a fiction of perception because it is a possibility is something that one would have to take on faith. To accept that the coffee table is real is pragmatic.To accept, for any reason, the perceived coffee table , and all the other miscellaneous perceived bits of our perception of the universe, as real seems to saves us no end of perceived grief, and seems to bring lots of perceived joy in the ways we seem to be able to manipulate our perceived stuff. One of the only greater perceived joys would be the ability to not use the words “perceived” and “ seems” quite so much.That could be done if we and all our peers had gone down to the railroad bridge with an ill gotten case of Old Milwaukee back in nineteen and seventy seven and fought it out then, but we didn’t. So if you let me know where you live I can score the Old Milwaukee if you can score a railroad bride.

---

Kindly******Fractally impudent

As cut-n-pasted by tesla:

quote:

---

...for example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life.

---

It is pragmatic of me to accept such a statement because it is impossible for me to check all these things for myself ” though this particular one I have. I do not, however, accept authority on faith; otherwise, I’d not require competence or veracity.These authorities have proven themselves by putting all their cards on the table up front in peer review journals. They say, “This is what we observed; this is what we thought; this is how we checked; this is what we found.” Then the peers say, “Your investigations look solid enough here, but this bit’s thin.” And the authorities respond by reinforcing the thin bit with the necessary patch.What they do not do is pettifog the English language, attempt to trap the peers into some lame-o syllogism, or save some juicy bit of evidence for later. Science is not a con game going to the best player.The OP was Equating Science with Faith. If that is in any way the point you are trying to answer you’re not going to get it done by insisting that what you mean by “Faith” is anything at all like what I mean by “Tentatively accept as the best possible answer given the available evidence.”You need to work on showing me that the conclusions we separately reach are similarly reliably valid regardless of whatever terminology we use. Are the ways you and I approach the evidence equivalent?I firmly believe, and this I do take on faith, that if some day we contact creatures from a distant world we will find that their science has independently evolved to be nearly identical to ours, but their religions will show no convergence whatsoever.My mother is a Catholic (who cries prays for me every day). She takes the word “faith” to be very meaningful to her religious experience. So too would I, I think, if I were a person of faith. Therefore, to listen to you cheapen the word to have a pawn in a losers game is baffling to me. I like being baffled: so keep it up.

---

Kindly******Scared of the dark

Oh good, ”cause if that’s all you’re questioning this should be easy.

​
The Religious Explanation for the Origin of the Universe.
​
​
The Scientific Explanation for the Origin of Life.
​
​
The Religious Explanation for the Origin of Life.
​

Not only won’t you admit your own ignorance, you won’t let us admit ours.AbE: Sorry, wrote this hours ago but my server wouldn't connect at the time; didn't mean to be redundant.Edited by lyx2no, : Apologies.

---

Kindly******Scared of the dark

Those patterns are the history of the Earth writ large. They proclaim evolution.

---

Kindly******If you have nothing nice to say say nothing.

You’re making up your own brand of evolution. The official brand of Evolution™ makes no claims about how life originated whatsoever. So, if you want to shoot down your own creation, go for it.I’ve little doubt that most Evolutionist^® do believe that life developed from nonliving matter. I’ve also little doubt that most Evolutionist^® do believe that the peanut butter should go inside the sandwich. But neither are tenets of ToE™.

---

Kindly******If you have nothing nice to say say nothing.

I was sitting at a bus stop the other day with my eyes closed, half asleep. I opened my eyes to the sudden appearance of a bus. And then it just sat there. It wasn’t a bus I was waiting for so I closed my eyes again. I’m guessing there was a gigantic, world wide flood ” which left no evidence of its occasion save for some small amount of sand in the culvert ” because when I opened my eyes again the bus had gone extinct.I suppose there might be other theories but to believe any of them I would have to pay attention.Could you please trot out some kind of thesis here so that this doesn’t have to be done in dribs and drabs? It’s not that I’m opposed to one liners: Use ”em all the time. But it would be nice to know how everything relates in the larger context of “ . therefore faith.”

---

Kindly******Often critical for its own sake.

Actually I can. The last time I worked on my car I developed a worn valve guide theory (WVGT) without regard to any of the many theories of automobile origins (AO).Edited by lyx2no, : left out the quote.

---

Kindly******Only claiming to not wanting to be difficult as a courtesy.

I’ve a broken finger at the moment so typing is a bit of a pain in the arse. The need to type less or get my finger out of my arse is indicated. Thankfully, I’ve been spared having to do either by those who've nicely answered to most of your postings.As to my bus story, it displayed that, base on two or three disconnected observations, the patterns of this world proclaim creation. If that’s what I want it to do. Had I made a few million more observations form dozens of different disciplines and didn’t come into it with a pet theory then I might just have been forced to come to a different conclusion. But maybe I’m asking for a bit to much evidence in one case and not enough in another.AbE: I was baking an Easter cake and had not seen post #138. This is coincidence solely having nothing to do with my proclivity to rebel in a smarty-pants sort of way.Edited by lyx2no, : To get my head out of the way of my finger.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.Edited by lyx2no, : Punc.

---

Kindly******Only claiming to not wanting to be difficult as a courtesy.

Are you suggesting that as I walk through the parking lot of the Cape Cod Mall, as I see little knicks and dings on peoples cars, that I am unable to determine that a car with a full quarter panel crushed, a plastic bag for a passenger side window and an optical orange smear running its full length, has suffered more than the average wear and tear of usage? Or that the reason that I am unable to make this distinction between a steady state process and a catastrophic process is due to some mind set of mine? Or that without a time machine any assumption of what might be the story behind the mashed car would be pointless?I have casually noticed that SUV’s have a much higher number of crushed rear bumpers than do sedans. Do I surmise that folks more frequently tail gate SUV’s than sedans, or that folks in SUV’s back into things more frequently then do folks in sedans? Or do I need a time machine?One of your kids returns the car with a back seat full of empties and the bumper stove, and he denies anything happened; do you throw your hands in the air saying there is then nothing to be done because you weren’t there to see it so can’t make any guesses as to what did happened? Can I borrow your car?Everyday everyone everywhere develops hypotheses based on observational evidence without a time machine. Upon closer observation many of those observations can be falsified while many others can be confirmed.The only time machine needed we have. I can still look today at fossilized sand dunes and conclude they were once regular old, blowy* around, sand dunes. Closer observation of the sand grains confirms they were blowy dunes and not washy* dunes. Or perhaps the grains contradict the blowy idea and force me to re-guess. And if the grains don’t a peer will.And there are hundreds and thousands of such time machines in every last rock quarry and road cut on Earth, and all pointing to the same story. And if I misread the record, a record available to any and all, a peer will read it differently. And if there’s a fight to be had both she and I have enough incentive to be right that neither will bow out: current theory be damned. Quite frankly, I’d not mind having Darwin’s Theory replaced by Dupee’s Theory. And that after one-hundred and sixty years we don't instead have a Tom, Dick and Harry’s Theory is testament itself to the strength of Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) wonderful idea. (It wasn’t Tom Darwin and Dick Wallace, was it?)Your inconcludiblity* theory leaves much to be desired. That evolution is taught as a fact has nothing to do with God at all. If God is the ultimate creator what he created was evolution. You, quite frankly, are in the position of not only denying the very clear message he left for us to read, but leading the children away from it too. I think Jesus had something to say about that. You might want to check.As for myself, I just love the way that God allows mutations in gene to accumulate without generalized expression throughout the entire species. Only the rare individuals with the short-limb genes will have shorter than usual limbs. But then, praise be You-Know-Whom, when the climate cools the short limbed individuals suffer less frost bite than their longer limbed pals ” the ones who used to meanly out compete them just because they could run faster ” I’d not be surprised if, out of shear spite or animosity, they wouldn’t even breed with those stretched out freaks anymore. Next thing you know five-thousand generations have past and a further accumulation of copying errors make it impossible for them to mate. The Lord works in mysterious way; just not ones that are too mysterious for you to accept. Yeah, that is a problem. Agreed. Much more likely to be true when they fit our basic evidences. Maybe so, but we’ve got 55 minutes to fill. I suppose the kids could use the extra fifty minutes to do their English homework.*Part of the English homework those kids need to do.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

---

Kindly******Pragmatic to the end.

Works fine if you’re in an armchair, but strap some wings on that puppy and push it over a cliff and one might be of another mind. That goes back to a stopped clock being right twice a day. No one says subjective reasoning can’t be right twice a day, but how does one tell when it’s right from when it’s wrong? They use an objective clock. So to what end does the pragmatist bother with the subjective clock? Didn’t keep that promise for very long, did ya’? Well, all the fancy talk aside, it’s all good when we’re talking about what color to paint the livingroom, but strap some wings on that puppy .

---

Kindly******Pragmatic to the end.

I was of the opinion that the object of the discussion was “Is Science Based in Faith?”, and was therefore interpreting your post with that in mind. I certainly would suggest that empirical knowledge is subject to error, but observations and measurements can be checked so the error would be trivial. How does one go about correcting error in the theoretical? Idealism only brings to mind something about worms wanting side arms so that birds wouldn’t screw with them: Just bigger “ifs” in the wishing.It could be I’m thinking too much like an engineer, but I’d still not be too quick to accept that a pragmatist would redefine truth so much as to devalue it. Useful would replace truth as the gold standard. But science is not mere engineering. Science seeks a much deeper "truth" than what is merely useful.However, if I’m arguing with a philosopher's definitions I’m out of my league. I’d serve all concerned best if I sat out for a spell. I'll be listening.Edited by lyx2no, : Clarity. Yeah, right! Me:clarity::squeezebox:bumblebee.

---

Kindly******Pragmatic to the end.

It’s not so much that it's elusive. It’s more that I’m gonna’ sit and watch it take the long way round the bush and catch it when it gets back over here.

---

KindlyWhy use an inertial fastening system when a nail will do just as well?

Hello OurCynic:The lottery and manufacturing gizmos are both ways of seeking wealth. The meaning of wealth, however, is ambiguous, allowing those who are of a mind to claim that the amusement born of anticipation one receives playing the Lotto or the pride one receives seeing all of those nice, shiny gizmos is a wealth worthy in its own right .This is, of course, merely back end loading: The making of lemon aid when the intended wealth doesn’t materialize, easing the guilt of bad decisions: Rationalization.I’m a bit hard put to understand why, since no one otherwise defined wealth then as cold hard cash when going into the fray, that it should be considered otherwise after the fact.Material wealth and spiritual wealth show no cause to be discussed in the same breath as if they somehow had anything close to the same meaning. They should, indeed, be given different names. “Knowledge” and “belief” would do if they weren’t already taken.Edited by lyx2no, : Punc.

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

I’m thinking that I was too cute by half in that response and would have better used “metaphorical” wealth rather than “spiritual” wealth. But I had already used the word “metaphor” or a dirivitive a dozen times today and was sick of the word.It’s kind of hard to avoid semantics when phrses like: are employeed.Hey, but what can ya’ do?

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.