Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2017 8:44 PM
373 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, JonF, Riggamortis (5 members, 368 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,358 Year: 18,964/21,208 Month: 1,723/3,111 Week: 518/707 Day: 94/120 Hour: 3/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality v3
nwr
Member
Posts: 5530
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 16 of 40 (726715)
05-11-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AZPaul3
05-11-2014 8:21 AM


Aren't science and faith both subsets of philosophy?

No.

Some philosophers might claim that. But philosophers can be wrong.

It would at least be closer to say that theology is a subset of philosophy. Faith and theology are not the same thing.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2014 8:21 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2014 1:10 PM nwr has responded
 Message 20 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2014 4:19 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18777
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 17 of 40 (726717)
05-11-2014 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
05-11-2014 12:36 PM


Some philosophers might claim that. But philosophers can be wrong.

It would at least be closer to say that theology is a subset of philosophy. Faith and theology are not the same thing.

So we could have a circle that contains facts -- objective evidence that we think is "true" to reality (or else all is illusion) ...

Surrounded by a circle that contains tested scientific theories that explain facts and objective evidence and predict future findings -- concepts that we have confidence are good approximations of reality, but which could be falsified by new evidence ...

Surrounded by a circle that contains untested scientific hypothesis based on theories and objective evidence -- concepts that may reflect reality or may be false and we can't know until some testing is done to see how they hold up ...

Surrounded by a circle that contains untestable natural philosophical hypothesis based on logic and internal consistency (not self-contradictory) -- concepts that may reflect reality or may be false and we can never because they can't be tested ...

-------------------------------

Then we have theological\supernatural philosophy -- concepts that may reflect reality beyond natural knowledge

Surrounded by beliefs -- concepts that include god/s and other non-natural things.

How do these fit together into a worldview? How do the natural and supernatural concepts mesh\interact?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 05-11-2014 12:36 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 05-11-2014 4:02 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5530
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 18 of 40 (726735)
05-11-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
05-11-2014 1:10 PM


Except that maybe it is more messy. Maybe it doesn't divide up that nicely.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2014 1:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 05-11-2014 4:11 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13314
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 19 of 40 (726736)
05-11-2014 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
05-11-2014 4:02 PM


nwr writes:

Except that maybe it is more messy. Maybe it doesn't divide up that nicely.


It's like piling food on your plate at a buffet. Sometimes you don't even remember what's on the bottom. (And the jello always winds up tasting like gravy.)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 05-11-2014 4:02 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(1)
Message 20 of 40 (726738)
05-11-2014 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
05-11-2014 12:36 PM


Faith and theology are not the same thing.

In RAZD's diagrams I took faith to mean theology, but I cede your point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 05-11-2014 12:36 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1685
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 21 of 40 (726744)
05-12-2014 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AZPaul3
05-11-2014 8:21 AM


Not anymore
AZPual3 writes:

Is that right? Aren't science and faith both subsets of philosophy?

As I see it, no.

Faith (religion) is believing that some preferred God created navals from nothing.

Philosophy is navel gazing. On the one hand, navels are a result of Mitra creating them. On the other hand, it might me that Mitra didn' create navals.

Science is styding how navals were formed to get to a reliable conclusion.

The scientific method provides reliable answers to that question.

It's the opposite of religion or faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2014 8:21 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2014 8:30 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 9:26 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(3)
Message 22 of 40 (726749)
05-12-2014 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Pressie
05-12-2014 5:32 AM


Re: Not anymore
The big guns in Navel research are being brought to bear by a flotilla of new studies. While other myths have been deep-six'ed the Mitra myth may have been torpedoed, listing badly to port, though it has not sunk. The Mitra hypothesis may regain its sea legs as these studies get cast leeward.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Pressie, posted 05-12-2014 5:32 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 9:01 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25596
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 23 of 40 (726751)
05-12-2014 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by AZPaul3
05-12-2014 8:30 AM


Re: Not anymore
That's hilarious.

Pressie must have had a bit too much "Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum."

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2014 8:30 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18777
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 24 of 40 (726754)
05-12-2014 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Pressie
05-12-2014 5:32 AM


what about non-scientific questions?
The scientific method provides reliable answers to that question.

How do you handle questions that are not open to the scientific method in accepting or rejecting them -- by how they fit with your worldview? Whichever is less dissonant to you?

Take politics for instance.

Edited by RAZD, : subt


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Pressie, posted 05-12-2014 5:32 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2014 9:55 AM RAZD has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 25 of 40 (726759)
05-12-2014 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
05-12-2014 9:26 AM


Re: what about non-scientific questions?
Firstly - Wouldn't we hope that one's political views are evidence led....?

Secondly - Where does knowledge of future events based on past experience fit into your diagram?

E.g. If I put a piece of potassium in water tomorrow (or at some other point in the future) we know it will react in a certain way as described in any chemistry book you can lay your hands on. We haven't actually put that specific piece of potassium in water yet but we still know what it will do when we do so. Which of your rings does that knowledge lie under?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 9:26 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 10:21 AM Straggler has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18777
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 26 of 40 (726767)
05-12-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Straggler
05-12-2014 9:55 AM


Re: what about non-scientific questions?
E.g. If I put a piece of potassium in water tomorrow (or at some other point in the future) we know it will react in a certain way as described in any chemistry book you can lay your hands on. We haven't actually put that specific piece of potassium in water yet but we still know what it will do when we do so. Which of your rings does that knowledge lie under?

Science.

Secondly - Where does knowledge of future events based on past experience fit into your diagram?

Putting potassium in water will cause the same reactions as before ... that kind of past experience ?

or we've always done it this way, it is traditional ... that kind of past experience ?

or every time the tax code is more progressive the economy improves and every time the tax code is more regressive the economy falters ... that kind of past experience ?

Firstly - Wouldn't we hope that one's political views are evidence led....?

Yet hoping doesn't make it so -- just look at global climate change and !bengazi! ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2014 9:55 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2014 10:39 AM RAZD has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 27 of 40 (726769)
05-12-2014 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
05-12-2014 10:21 AM


Re: what about non-scientific questions?
RAZD writes:

Putting potassium in water will cause the same reactions as before ... that kind of past experience ?

Yes.

RAZD writes:

Science.

OK - So no inherent distinction between past and present in terms of your classification of knowledge/confidence then. Just checking as many would make such a distinction.

Straggler writes:

Firstly - Wouldn't we hope that one's political views are evidence led....?

RAZD writes:

Yet hoping doesn't make it so

That is as true of any evidence on any subject.

RAZD writes:

just look at global climate change and !bengazi!

Indeed. And there are still people who genuinely believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

So with your diagram - Are you attempting to describe what people actually do in terms of classifying their beliefs/knowledge? Or are you prescribing how knowledge/beliefs should be classified?

The two will look very different so it is important to know whether your diagram is trying to be descriptive or prescriptive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 10:21 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 6:30 PM Straggler has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2924
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 28 of 40 (726773)
05-12-2014 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
05-10-2014 2:15 PM


Perceptions and Reality
I'm not sure I understand the diagram.

I also liked the concept of what you said in Message 14:

RAZD writes:

Perhaps what I should do is discard the labels and use just the definitions proposed

Inner core: is what we know about reality from objective evidence and the scientific method.

middle layer: is what we think about reality based on logic that is internally consistent

outer layer: is what we believe about reality without objectivity or logic.

But... using the Science/Philosophy/Faith labels does make things easier, so I'm just going to use the labels and assume we're talking about the definitions you've specified here.

So... getting back to my non-understanding... what are we actually trying to show with this diagram?
Perceptions of Reality... but what does that mean?

I think the diagram would be more complete with an actual shaded region showing "Matches Reality" and "Does Not Match Reality."
I think this could be shown with a diagonal line. Going from top left to bottom right on about a 45 degree angle...
I also don't think such a line should go through the middle of the diagram, but at least through the centre of the "science" circle (but on the same 45 degree angle or so). And maybe even closer towards the lower-left area where all the circles kind of bunch up.

Anything on the left of the line would be "Matches Reality" and anything to the right would be "Does Not Match Reality."

I mean... the whole point is that we never actually get to know when something matches reality or not. Simply because we can always be wrong/mistaken just because we're human.
But, we do know that our science-perceptions are closer/better than our philosophy-perceptions which are closer/better than our faith perceptions (although all 3 have "a chance" of being real).

I think that would relay some actual information with the diagram.

Without something like that... it's nice to see "perceptions"... but what is the diagram actually telling us? Is it telling us anything significant if we can't relay it back to reality?

If it is just telling us "perceptions" then I would be pressed to push the point that there are some strange people with some strange perceptions... and perhaps it's possible that some person's perceptions just don't align well to any neat, clean venn diagram.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2014 2:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2014 11:41 AM Stile has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18777
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 29 of 40 (726801)
05-12-2014 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Straggler
05-12-2014 10:39 AM


Re: what about non-scientific questions?
So with your diagram - Are you attempting to describe what people actually do in terms of classifying their beliefs/knowledge? Or are you prescribing how knowledge/beliefs should be classified?

I'm just thinking of it as a generalized sum of all concepts and some basic categories they would fall into. Probably more of a spectrum than hard and fast circles.

Trying to get a handle on what we can know, what we think we know, and what we hope we know, as it were.

But everyone will have their own set of classified concepts, which gets back to worldviews.

I don't think I can classify your perceptions so much as I can classify my perceptions of your perceptions, and vice versa. But we can find consilience on some views, just as we can find some disagreements on others.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2014 10:39 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2014 7:08 PM RAZD has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 40 (726802)
05-12-2014 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
05-12-2014 6:30 PM


Re: what about non-scientific questions?
So for someone like Faith we would have a "fact" circle that had biblical inerrancy in it because her perception of reality is founded on that. Its totally individual. Is that what you are doing - Examining individual perceptions of reality looking for common ground no matter how different?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2014 6:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2014 11:47 AM Straggler has responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017