|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4838 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RAZD writes: Examples of properly supported 2's and 6' are rife within sciences,.... Only for those of us who take a "6" position on omphalism. For you, there are no 6's or 2's in the sciences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Meldinoor, btw, Happy belated B-day.
So if someone makes a claim and doesn't have evidence to support it, the most skeptical approach is to assume it is wrong? If you get a chance, check out the pseudo-thread and read Rrhain's posts. The point is that if anyone makes any claim (whether it's true or not) the initial position in science is the null position. That is the starting point. Example, if you were to say to me, "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen," (think back to a time before we knew that was true) my initial position is, "no it's not." Now, it's up to you to prove that it is - if we're follow a scientific methodology (which I think most will agree that it's the only way of investigating questions in nature). Think of Einstein and relativity. It was no use to just say what he thought gravity was, he had to demonstrate it. Likewise, if someone claims the supernatural exists, or god, or whatever (telepathy/ghosts/spirits/etc) the initial position is "no they don't," and now its up to the one making the claim (ie. Einstein, Darwin, Copernicus) to demonstrate why it is true, or at the very least, show some supporting evidence for why it might be true. In science, that would mean the evidence must be objective.
But effectively I'm a 4/7 regarding his existence, because I don't have any means by which to argue for or against this multi-universe proposition. I mostly agree with all you've said, but let me ask a question. Do you think you should be a 4/7 regarding the existence of ambiguous concepts? IMO, the null position makes the most sense. Flat out, it doesn't exist until... This forces those making the claim to do the work of producing the proof we would require for any other claim (we don't teach water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen simply because someone subjectively thinks it does. No, we demanded proof). So why should supernatural concepts be excused from this rigorous testing method? (A method that has proven to be the most successful in understanding our world, in fact, our reality) That's why I often don't like the Dawkins scale, because it has "atheist" on it. When atheism is not an actual "position," but really, it's the lack of position. It's the null position. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
the null position makes the most sense. Flat out, it doesn't exist until. But it is not true. If the term "absence of evidence, is evidence of absence" then water just formed on the moon inexplicably and recently. We just had no evidence to support that water is on the moon. That statement means, there is no water on the moon. It's a logical fallacy, a false premise, and that is why it is rejected. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
But it is not true. If the term "absence of evidence, is evidence of absence" then water just formed on the moon inexplicably and recently. Evidence is not proof. You can have evidence for something that turns out to be wrong. That doesn't mean the evidence pointed to the truth until new evidence was found, it just means the evidence was not sufficient, was incorrectly understood, or was ambiguous. {AbE} All that's being said is, until there is evidence FOR a proposition, the best starting point is one of disbelief. As new evidence rolls in, your position changes, it can move closer to belief, or it can remain at disbelief, but with more certainty. Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
We just had no evidence to support that water is on the moon. That statement means, there is no water on the moon. It's a logical fallacy, a false premise, and that is why it is rejected. Well we did have evidence to support the hypothesis that water is on the moon. So there wasn't "absence of evidence." There was plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis, just as there's evidence to support the hypothesis that other terrestrial planets, even some moons around gas planets, have water. Here's an equal claim but one for which no supporting evidence can support it: There is water on the Sun. Now, since there's no evidence to support that hypothesis, one should take the null position that there isn't water on the Sun, until someone presents evidence to support just the hypothesis alone. But again, this falls back on my previous reasons why "is there a god?" has no relevance. There is no reason to suppose there is one. There is no reason for the god hypothesis. Likewise, there's no reason for the "Sun has water" hypothesis; they're both irrelevant questions. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There is no reason to suppose there is one. There is no reason for the god hypothesis. The Bible. or My mommy told me god exists. There's reasons to suppose....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The point is that if anyone makes any claim (whether it's true or not) the initial position in science is the null position. That is the starting point. That's all fine and dandy in the lab, but for everyday pratical purposes it just doesn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
The Bible. or My mommy told me god exists. There's reasons to suppose....
You're right, I should have been more specific. There is no objective evidence to suppose the god hypothesis. However I will admit that there is no shortage of subjective evidence for it. And appeals to authorities, which I would say your mom and the Bible are, is not (IMO) a good reason. But they're subjective, so I won't argue that they're not relevant to the individual. They're just not relevant in a scientific way. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
for everyday pratical purposes it just doesn't work. Maybe for some. This is how I live my life. I don't believe a claim unless I have an objective reaosn to do so. If a friend tells me something, I have a history with that friend and can guage whether they're knowledgeable enough in the topic to know what they're talking about, and whether this is something they would lie to me about. If I read it on the internet from some anonymous poster, I'll look for corroborating evidence elsewhere at sites I have reason to trust (as with my friend.) I think most people do this, they're just not necessarily aware of it. As Straggler says, there is rarely, if ever, a complete vaccuum of evidence surrounding a claim, and all that peripheral objective evidence should be taken into account.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
That's all fine and dandy in the lab, but for everyday pratical purposes it just doesn't work. Right, agreed. We experience life subjectively so I agree that it's a seperate issue in our everyday lives. But in the context that this discussion is taking place, it is the lab that I'm talking about. I refer you to Message 52 from RAZD and my response in Message 54. It's in regards to how science should approach it. Also see Message 61, and Message 68, these also will explain the context better. As I said in message 68: "Well in this instance it does because it's dealing more with the methodology of scientific inquiry." - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You're right, I should have been more specific. There is no objective evidence to suppose the god hypothesis. Millions of believers couldn't be wrong... an objective reason for supposition.
And appeals to authorities, which I would say your mom and the Bible are, is not (IMO) a good reason. But a reason none-the-less?
But they're subjective, so I won't argue that they're not relevant to the individual. They're just not relevant in a scientific way. But I'm not in the lab right now...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Millions of believers couldn't be wrong... an objective reason for supposition. Appeal to popularity? Millions of believers are wrong on all sorts of things. Millions of people believed the Earth was flat. Millions of people believed you couldn't break the sound barrier. Millions of people believe in anthropomorphic spirits dwelling inside all objects. Millions of people believe in something that is incompatible with millions of other people's beliefs. The belief that if a lot of others believe something, I should too, is not objective in the least. It's subjective. It could very well be that no one is right, or maybe one lone little man in BFE, and no one listens to him because "millions of people can't be wrong."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As an aside, in regards to the methodology of science:
When the gravity equations didn't come out right and the proposition for dark matter emerged, as opposed to questioning the validity of the equations, wouldn't you agree that the methodology of science was not how you are describing it here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The belief that if a lot of others believe something, I should too, is not objective in the least. It's subjective. What's objective is that millions of people believe.
Appeal to popularity? Millions of believers are wrong on all sorts of things. While logically fallacious and a poorly accurate, its still a reason to suppose the existence of god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
When the gravity equations didn't come out right and the proposition for dark matter emerged, as opposed to questioning the validity of the equations, wouldn't you agree that the methodology of science was not how you are describing it here? But the gravity equations had been correct for a lot of other instances. There was evidence that they are accurate (or close to it) and one bit of evidence that there was something wrong. The options are to propose something new "dark matter" or scrap the equations. The evidence was on the side of the equations. And there are a number of scientists out there who are trying other gravity equations to do away with dark matter.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024