Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 181 of 326 (461455)
03-25-2008 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Beretta
03-25-2008 11:48 AM


Re: Faith vs Reality
If God exists then what we are teaching may be a lie.
And if Odin exists then what the christian churches teach may be a lie. Should christian churches teach about Odin the Allfather in order to make sure an alternate view is presented?

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Beretta, posted 03-25-2008 11:48 AM Beretta has not replied

OurCynic
Junior Member (Idle past 5842 days)
Posts: 18
From: Lakewood, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2008


Message 182 of 326 (461462)
03-25-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rahvin
03-25-2008 3:08 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
quote:
You are correct in stating that both science and faith involve belief. The issue is that science trusts objective, repeatable evidence, and draws reasoned conclusions based on that evidence. Faith believes without objective evidence. The two are clearly different, and when representations of reality are concerned, objectivity is clearly superior to subjectivity. You can believe that the moon is made of cheese all you want - but it is demonstrably not so based on objective evidence. The belief that the moon is made of cheese is clearly not a representation of reality.
This argument of course bears considerable weight. I'm not going to disagree, however I would say for the purpose of discussion, one should consider the varying perspectives which are representations of reality. Without using too many big words, it would be easy to say at this point that whatsoever a person believes, from thier perspective is as important as what actually is. In terms of the standard of proof of science, or the trust (or respect) that is granted a point of view whether objective or subjective, this tends to muddy the water a bit.
Sign and symbol has been an important facet of human psychology for some time, a sign is the object of analysis, or your objective evidence. A symbol, is a subjective representation in the mind of what actually is. It has been argued, that symbology, or the interpretation of sign, bears equal weight.
So, how can it be said with any validity, that a subjective reasoning, when presented with verifiable and accurate data, would be inaccurate?
The notion of pragmatism assumes that all people with sufficient tools to investigate a given observation or sign, will reach the same conclusion. I'm asking here, how can I go about explaining a rational conclusion between science and faith, or sign and symbol, that can also be considered valid pragmatically?
In some of kurt lewins papers I mentioned before, he tries to infer that in some way there is a pragmatic conclusion between the two belief systems I was explaining before. The trouble is, that when drawing conclusions from both systems of belief, aristotelian and galilean, he was breaking the rules of pragmatism, because the belief systems from aristotelian to galilean changed over time. His reasoning that all people as individuals must be studied as exceptions was valid, but it can muddy the water a bit when trying to infer, that there was a verifiable statistic.
The example I'm using has a lot to do with psychology so I might as well posit the argument that emil kraeplin's DSM attempted to rationalize a vastly diverse series of data, in this case individuals, and typify any statistic or diagnostic criteria that was consistent from individual to individual. Ok, so thats an example, now the question.
How do beliefs come to be such that they are understood by a greater number of people given that, all of the people have the tools or introspection required, to make the same subjective conclusion in terms of symbology and does that in any way render a verifiable conclusion? Like the DSM does in psychology, beliefs in many ways can be viewed by cross section or by criteria or, creed. And it can be said that it matters, what subjective conclusions are reached by these individuals, because that is in this case the criteria we're trying to draw a conclusion from.
With that said, although the respect granted to objective, empirical reality bears considerable weight, its the interpretation of empirical sense that is important, so it is difficult to say that it is simply a matter of objective versus subjective, when every individual that we're evaluating functions by transposing sign to symbol. It is a good argument, and I understand what you have said. However, lets evaluate how people reach the conclusions that they reach without stratifying the level of objectivity presented by thier evidence for a moment so as to perhaps discourse on the nature of thier reasoning.
quote:
So far you soud like a reasonable individual. In my OP I never proposed that faith was completely invalid, or that people are silly for relying on it. Faith relies on subjective experience instead of objective evidence. As you said, they are different systems, apples and oranges.
I did not mean to put any words in your mouth, I know that you are not saying with any amount of conviction that any such system is compeltely invalid. This I think is because, people including you or I, often rely on both the objective empirical data, and the interpretation of these senses. Actually when I said they were completely differing systems I was expecting an argument that would somehow allow me to make that statement. Though I dont believe in my opinions that faith can render science any more validity, or vice versa, I too believe that people have reasons for reaching such conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rahvin, posted 03-25-2008 3:08 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by lyx2no, posted 03-25-2008 6:27 PM OurCynic has replied
 Message 185 by Rahvin, posted 03-25-2008 6:37 PM OurCynic has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 183 of 326 (461468)
03-25-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Rahvin
03-24-2008 1:06 PM


Re: Miller Experiment
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
I'm not seeing any faith involved here, Baretta. I'm seeing the scientific method doing exactly what it does best - working through all of the available evidence to arrive at a reasonable conclusion based wholly on objective evidence, with no faith involved.
No heart attack please, but I agree faith is not required here.
If all of a sudden with only the evidence available now it was declared that life appeared from non-life then faith would be required.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2008 1:06 PM Rahvin has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 184 of 326 (461471)
03-25-2008 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by OurCynic
03-25-2008 5:23 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
Without using too many big words, it would be easy to say at this point that whatsoever a person believes, from thier perspective is as important as what actually is.
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.
So, how can it be said with any validity, that a subjective reasoning, when presented with verifiable and accurate data, would be inaccurate?
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?
Without using too many big words .
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 5:23 PM OurCynic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 7:22 PM lyx2no has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 185 of 326 (461473)
03-25-2008 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by OurCynic
03-25-2008 5:23 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
quote:
You are correct in stating that both science and faith involve belief. The issue is that science trusts objective, repeatable evidence, and draws reasoned conclusions based on that evidence. Faith believes without objective evidence. The two are clearly different, and when representations of reality are concerned, objectivity is clearly superior to subjectivity. You can believe that the moon is made of cheese all you want - but it is demonstrably not so based on objective evidence. The belief that the moon is made of cheese is clearly not a representation of reality.
This argument of course bears considerable weight. I'm not going to disagree, however I would say for the purpose of discussion, one should consider the varying perspectives which are representations of reality. Without using too many big words, it would be easy to say at this point that whatsoever a person believes, from thier perspective is as important as what actually is. In terms of the standard of proof of science, or the trust (or respect) that is granted a point of view whether objective or subjective, this tends to muddy the water a bit.
And the topic of this thread is essencially the mud that has filled the water. Some people attempt to equate objective evidence that can be reproduced at will with subjective experiences and beliefs that have a marked lack of any objective evidence.
This is a problem. We already agree that faigh and science are two compeltely different systems, one based at its core on subjectivity and the other based on objectivity. Why, then, do some people (like ICANT) insist on claiming that science is based on just as much faith as his religious beliefs?
The answer is that he wants to claim it takes "more faith to believe in (insert scientific model here)" than to believe "goddidit." He wants to claim that his subjective beliefs have equal or greater validty when compared with the objective conclusions of science.
What he's really saying, of course, is that it's "easier" to believe in God than in scientific models. And he's right - it takes a very large amount of effort to really understand the basis of, say, cosmological models. It takes no effort whatsoever to encounter an unknown and cry out "god!"
Sign and symbol has been an important facet of human psychology for some time, a sign is the object of analysis, or your objective evidence. A symbol, is a subjective representation in the mind of what actually is. It has been argued, that symbology, or the interpretation of sign, bears equal weight.
So, how can it be said with any validity, that a subjective reasoning, when presented with verifiable and accurate data, would be inaccurate?
That's just it - if there is verifiable and accurate data, the reasoning is no longer subjective. If I can show you reproducible, verifiable evidence, my conclusions are objective.
Faith-based beliefs are those which are based on no objective evidence.
Symbols can mean different things across cultures or even individuals. They have no accurate connection with reality - they are wholly defined and modeled on the human imagination. So too with faith and other subjective subjects.
Signs, like science, are clear and objective. They remain the same, reproducible, demonstrable, and with a clear connection to reality. Science is objective.
The notion of pragmatism assumes that all people with sufficient tools to investigate a given observation or sign, will reach the same conclusion. I'm asking here, how can I go about explaining a rational conclusion between science and faith, or sign and symbol, that can also be considered valid pragmatically?
In some of kurt lewins papers I mentioned before, he tries to infer that in some way there is a pragmatic conclusion between the two belief systems I was explaining before. The trouble is, that when drawing conclusions from both systems of belief, aristotelian and galilean, he was breaking the rules of pragmatism, because the belief systems from aristotelian to galilean changed over time. His reasoning that all people as individuals must be studied as exceptions was valid, but it can muddy the water a bit when trying to infer, that there was a verifiable statistic.
The example I'm using has a lot to do with psychology so I might as well posit the argument that emil kraeplin's DSM attempted to rationalize a vastly diverse series of data, in this case individuals, and typify any statistic or diagnostic criteria that was consistent from individual to individual. Ok, so thats an example, now the question.
How do beliefs come to be such that they are understood by a greater number of people given that, all of the people have the tools or introspection required, to make the same subjective conclusion in terms of symbology and does that in any way render a verifiable conclusion? Like the DSM does in psychology, beliefs in many ways can be viewed by cross section or by criteria or, creed. And it can be said that it matters, what subjective conclusions are reached by these individuals, because that is in this case the criteria we're trying to draw a conclusion from.
With that said, although the respect granted to objective, empirical reality bears considerable weight, its the interpretation of empirical sense that is important, so it is difficult to say that it is simply a matter of objective versus subjective, when every individual that we're evaluating functions by transposing sign to symbol. It is a good argument, and I understand what you have said. However, lets evaluate how people reach the conclusions that they reach without stratifying the level of objectivity presented by thier evidence for a moment so as to perhaps discourse on the nature of thier reasoning.
Let's remember that science, with the scientific method, is the ultimate expression of the attempt to eliminate the crossover between sign and symbol altogether. Results are tested over and over again by multiple independent researchers in the attempt to drive out any possibility of subjectivity.
The Big Bang model, for example, means something very specific. The model is not subjective, and does not rely on anything subjective. It does not require interpretation, only knowledge of the principles involved and the ability to follow the math. The results are the same across any number of individuals so long as the math is done correctly. Additional variables and different values can be used to test against observations from reality, but again, no subjectivity is involved.
When discussing models of reality, the scientific method is not only completely different from religion in that it is not based on faith, it is also infinitely superior becasue its accuracy can be tested.
Subjective beliefs with no objective evidence are all of equal value when comparing them to reality - belief n the Christian deity is exactly as valid as the Islamic deity, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - all have exactly the same objective ties to reality: none whatsoever.
quote:
So far you soud like a reasonable individual. In my OP I never proposed that faith was completely invalid, or that people are silly for relying on it. Faith relies on subjective experience instead of objective evidence. As you said, they are different systems, apples and oranges.
I did not mean to put any words in your mouth, I know that you are not saying with any amount of conviction that any such system is compeltely invalid. This I think is because, people including you or I, often rely on both the objective empirical data, and the interpretation of these senses. Actually when I said they were completely differing systems I was expecting an argument that would somehow allow me to make that statement. Though I dont believe in my opinions that faith can render science any more validity, or vice versa, I too believe that people have reasons for reaching such conclusions. [/qs]
I didn't mean to suggest you were - that comment was meant for lurkers and certain posters who like to latch on to what they see as hypocrisy.
I agree that people have reasons for faith-based conclusions. Such reasons include tradition, trust in parents (as was the case for me), gullibility, wishful thinking, false pattern recognition, and all manner of other subjective reasons that have no objective basis in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 5:23 PM OurCynic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 7:56 PM Rahvin has not replied

OurCynic
Junior Member (Idle past 5842 days)
Posts: 18
From: Lakewood, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2008


Message 186 of 326 (461479)
03-25-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by lyx2no
03-25-2008 6:27 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
quote:
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.
Rationalism is by no means the thought of an armchair theologan. You yourself are claiming that empirical knowledge is subject to error. But there again, this isnt simple rationalism. Its idealism. which is what we're discussing if you dont mind me saying so.
quote:
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?
A pragmatist would bother, because the idea behind pragmatism is as I had clearly stated: truth, is that opinion which is to be ultimatly agreed upon, by every individual capable of investigating the truth. If a pragmatist doesnt bother with understanding the subjective interpretation of opinion, there is no validity to the epistemological argument. However, pragmatism also requires that the data presented for the investigation is not subjective or 'mystical' in nature. There is a line to be drawn here, the difference between subjective or 'mystical' data, and objective or empirical data. As I think Rahvin was just about to say, if you dont mind my saying so.
The empirical data obtained by attempting to fly an armchair may have at one time been useful as a study in aerospace engineering, but its no longer of any consequence. Such would be a good argument against pragmatism. Historically people have had ideas which were no closer to the truth than your armchair hypothesis. Because these ideas tend to change, but the truth does not, how would pragmatism be a valid means of finding truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by lyx2no, posted 03-25-2008 6:27 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 03-25-2008 8:02 PM OurCynic has replied
 Message 189 by Blue Jay, posted 03-25-2008 8:19 PM OurCynic has replied
 Message 190 by teen4christ, posted 03-25-2008 9:11 PM OurCynic has replied
 Message 191 by lyx2no, posted 03-25-2008 9:25 PM OurCynic has replied

OurCynic
Junior Member (Idle past 5842 days)
Posts: 18
From: Lakewood, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2008


Message 187 of 326 (461483)
03-25-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Rahvin
03-25-2008 6:37 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
This is a good thread, I still tend to think that the use of terms such as subjective and objective are one way of waffling, though.
quote:
That's just it - if there is verifiable and accurate data, the reasoning is no longer subjective. If I can show you reproducible, verifiable evidence, my conclusions are objective.
But not always, see thats what I'm saying within the confines of an epistemological argument. Conclusions about truths (such as the moon being made of cheese) which are in error, even though being provided all of the objective data available, using whatever system of logic available at the time falsifies the validity of the pragmitist argument at hand. So the trouble is, evaluating whether subjective data is more or less valid than objective data is irrelevent, when only the data which is available is presented. A perfectly rational and logical person could conclude that volcanic eruptions are the result of gaia's indigestion if that person did not have the tools to evaluate evidence or if there was a lack of evidence. Science seeks to create objectivity for this reason, and it seeks to provide the tools for such investigations. I wont be backed into the argument that was presented, suggesting that a conclusion based on a lack of evidence is in any way valid. But, I will say that until science has some kind of magical omniscient oracle device, there is not a way to make all conclusions perfectly objective and verifiable, as such this objectivity can still be in error, as much in error as the notion that 'goddidit' because theres no evidence that says otherwise.
I present then a paradigm, which was the fruit of a discussion that a friend and I had, and that is to say that speculation, is inversely proportional to the ability to aquire evidence. There will never be one without the other, but there is certainly some sense to the notion that less speculation equals an argument that is more valid. I say that one will never be without the other, because omniscience and cognizance in my view are mutually exclusive. Either polar extreme; one side of course you have omniscience with all answers perfectly explained and verifiable, which of course eliminates cognizance because if all things were known, speculation is nonexistant.
quote:
Symbols can mean different things across cultures or even individuals. They have no accurate connection with reality - they are wholly defined and modeled on the human imagination. So too with faith and other subjective subjects.
Signs, like science, are clear and objective. They remain the same, reproducible, demonstrable, and with a clear connection to reality. Science is objective.
As I had said, neither of these extremes would be true. It is a common mistake to elevate an argument to its extreme in order to make a claim. Symbol, exists in reality as a means to understand reality, that is its connection. Signs are never entirely clear or objective, but thats the reason for symbolic thinking and speculation. Its really a symbiosis.
quote:
When discussing models of reality, the scientific method is not only completely different from religion in that it is not based on faith, it is also infinitely superior becasue its accuracy can be tested.
I suppose I'll have to digress, because I'm far from a faith based thinker. but what I'm proposing here is actually testing the accuracy of the thing doing the testing. So to make that argument, one would need to test whether or not he or she were alive. The chalmers philosophical zombie is a good experiment in this area, supposing that there are people with no cognizance or will of thier own, a perfect zombie simply responding to the environment, would be empirically no different than the average person. there would be no objective data, no verifiable evidence that could show the zombie was a zombie, or that a person is a person. because consciousness is subjective, theres no way that I can prove that myself, or anyone else, has it. So by taking this argument to extremes you've only elucidated the necessity of subjectivity further.
However let me say that I'm not defending the notion that truth can be found without evidence. In fact I was initially trying to say that there is some kind of interaction or idealism which takes place in any dialectical argument. Dialectics like science and faith. Or subjectivity and objectivity. I'm surprised no-one caught that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Rahvin, posted 03-25-2008 6:37 PM Rahvin has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 188 of 326 (461485)
03-25-2008 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by OurCynic
03-25-2008 7:22 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
Hard to tell where you're heading by associating pragmatism and truth with science. Science is usually described as empirical, not as pragmatic or seeking truth.
I have no objection to pragmatism, it certainly seems a most useful quality for successful scientific investigation, but it isn't a defining quality of science.
I have no objection to truth, either, unless by truth you mean the timeless truths of religion. But it might be more accurate to say that science is seeking what is true about the natural world.
In any case, I don't see how any of this is an argument for equating science with faith. Any endeavor whose foundation is the empirical gathering of real-world evidence would seem to be the polar opposite of the faith of religion.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 7:22 PM OurCynic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by OurCynic, posted 03-26-2008 4:56 AM Percy has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 189 of 326 (461488)
03-25-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by OurCynic
03-25-2008 7:22 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
OurCynic writes:
A pragmatist would bother, because the idea behind pragmatism is as I had clearly stated: truth, is that opinion which is to be ultimatly agreed upon, by every individual capable of investigating the truth.
Actually, this is what you clearly stated:
OurCynic writes:
The notion of pragmatism assumes that all people with sufficient tools to investigate a given observation or sign, will reach the same conclusion.
A broken clock does not qualify as "sufficient tools," and those who rely on them to tell the time cannot be considered "capable of investigating the truth." They will therefore only come to the same conclusion if they happen to make their conclusion on the exact minute of the day at which their clock stopped forty years ago. Therefore, their correctness is a matter of coincidence, not of the success of their investigation technique. The technique is completely flawed and unreliable.
The thing that's really inexplicable is that, there is a proven method for finding the time: it's called a functional clock. Without it, you can't ever be sure the broken clock is right, even when it does just happen to be right. So, just stick to the reliable stuff and deal with the five percent margin of error. Otherwise, you're dealing with a five percent margin of correctness.
By the same logic, if a religion's (or school's/philosophy's/etc., just to be fair) teachings just happen to include something that's correct, it isn't their faith, intelligence or great education that saved them, but coincidence only. Therefore, the religion (school/philosophy) is still invalid (and false), even though they managed to guess the correct answer one time.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 7:22 PM OurCynic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by OurCynic, posted 03-26-2008 5:16 AM Blue Jay has replied

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 190 of 326 (461499)
03-25-2008 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by OurCynic
03-25-2008 7:22 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
OurCynic writes
quote:
Historically people have had ideas which were no closer to the truth than your armchair hypothesis. Because these ideas tend to change, but the truth does not, how would pragmatism be a valid means of finding truth?
I think you are missing the main point that many people are trying to make, that science does not care much for "truth" or that "truth" can actually be attained at all.
You seem to be criticizing science for one of its strongest characteristics, which is the ability to change itself accordingly in the face of new evidence. The same cannot be said of dogmatic "truths".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 7:22 PM OurCynic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by OurCynic, posted 03-26-2008 5:06 AM teen4christ has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 191 of 326 (461501)
03-25-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by OurCynic
03-25-2008 7:22 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by OurCynic, posted 03-25-2008 7:22 PM OurCynic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by OurCynic, posted 03-26-2008 8:18 AM lyx2no has replied

OurCynic
Junior Member (Idle past 5842 days)
Posts: 18
From: Lakewood, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2008


Message 192 of 326 (461545)
03-26-2008 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy
03-25-2008 8:02 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
quote:
Hard to tell where you're heading by associating pragmatism and truth with science. Science is usually described as empirical, not as pragmatic or seeking truth.
I have no objection to pragmatism, it certainly seems a most useful quality for successful scientific investigation, but it isn't a defining quality of science.
I have no objection to truth, either, unless by truth you mean the timeless truths of religion. But it might be more accurate to say that science is seeking what is true about the natural world.
In any case, I don't see how any of this is an argument for equating science with faith. Any endeavor whose foundation is the empirical gathering of real-world evidence would seem to be the polar opposite of the faith of religion.
Well, the cool thing is that this is where it gets interesting. The original assumption was of course that faith and science are different systems, but both for finding truth. The quibbling over the objective and subjective realms of evidence was not entirely relevent but I entertained the argument for the sake of discussion.
However, I'm trying to recant my previous statement, that because faith and science are polar opposites in this discussion, that thier phenominology is any different. I would say this only because to me it is a matter not of whether science is empirical, which it is, or whether religion is not empirical. It is of more importance to me in this kind of qualitative analysis what people believe and why.
So although faith is not really a matter of objective truth, people will believe there are truths in religion.
I say that conflict is what occurs when two people or societies, both do not grant one another the respect of understanding thier point of view. Although it may seem in this discussion that it is less important the ideologies of faith and science, in both realms it is very important. Because whenever respect is not granted to an ideology conflict occurs such as the current conflicts in the world with contemporary monotheism. To me although this argument is a matter of reasoning, it is empirical in that the beliefs which people undertake are very real, because these beliefs dictate a person or societies actions and perception of truth.
I still cannot elaborate on the reasoning for believing that science cannot render faith any more or less viable as a system for finding truth. However, I would say that both are systems for finding truth, although one may be more accurate than the other, one may be subjective and one may be objective. Thier consequences are entirely empirical. Such is the only thing that can be measured in this kind of situation because it is silly to think that anyone can know, what it is like to be anyone else. So behaviors can be typified and classified, but beliefs cannot really.
I usually do not judge the way that any person finds truth, but I will judge the actions and the reasoning for a person's behaviors. So simply put, a valid means of identifying truth is important in a society where there are laws which require a social contract, because varying perceptions of truth cause conflict and, ultimately the breakdown of a society. Capitalism is a good example. In a society based on conflict between opposing perceptions of truth, conflict becomes the only true means for that society to function. In history, no such civilization with mass communication between the dialectics of science and faith, has survived.
But perhaps stability was what religion was for, as it became implemented as a means of social control, for beings which innately seek truths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 03-25-2008 8:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 03-26-2008 8:54 AM OurCynic has replied
 Message 202 by bluegenes, posted 03-26-2008 7:42 PM OurCynic has replied

OurCynic
Junior Member (Idle past 5842 days)
Posts: 18
From: Lakewood, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2008


Message 193 of 326 (461547)
03-26-2008 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by teen4christ
03-25-2008 9:11 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
quote:
I think you are missing the main point that many people are trying to make, that science does not care much for "truth" or that "truth" can actually be attained at all.
Actually thats interesting that you say so, it is an argument I would have taken. Except I would have questioned instead whether truth exists.
In this discussion, it is important to say that empirical evidence does not always suggest or imply any conclusion. Faith does imply such a conclusion because it is a means for defining a societies interpretations of truth. Such is its function, it has always been that way. In the indus valley culture for example the rain god indra was used to help a society understand why the floods and famine in the geographical area kept killing members of thier society. Although it provided enough subjective truth for the society to endure, the belief that thier rain god somehow controlled the lives of others would not have been empirically valid or justified. Suggesting that science given the opportunity to explain the weather patterns does not attain something closer to the truth, or try to, is really kindof a silly assessment looking at things historically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by teen4christ, posted 03-25-2008 9:11 PM teen4christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by teen4christ, posted 03-26-2008 7:27 PM OurCynic has replied

OurCynic
Junior Member (Idle past 5842 days)
Posts: 18
From: Lakewood, CO USA
Joined: 03-25-2008


Message 194 of 326 (461548)
03-26-2008 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Blue Jay
03-25-2008 8:19 PM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
I think you are still under the assumption that I am defending faith as a viable means of finding truth. I wanted to write a reply because you took the time to respond to the thread, however I'm having a difficult time finding something that I'm disagreeing with. As I stated in a post that you had perhaps missed, science is not a perfect tool.
quote:
A broken clock does not qualify as "sufficient tools," and those who rely on them to tell the time cannot be considered "capable of investigating the truth." They will therefore only come to the same conclusion if they happen to make their conclusion on the exact minute of the day at which their clock stopped forty years ago. Therefore, their correctness is a matter of coincidence, not of the success of their investigation technique. The technique is completely flawed and unreliable.
A broken clock may be less accurate than a clock which works, but it takes quite a fantastic machine to tell the actual time of day. Whereas a good approximation could be made simply by observing the environment, its not as accurate as a cesium clock for measuring time. Its important to realize of course that the available tools for interpreting reality can change the perception of reality.
Such, that in my view the older sundial method for determining time which I'll equate to religion, may no longer be as accurate as an atomic clock, which I'll equate to science respectively. So, it is difficult to find an argument with your statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Blue Jay, posted 03-25-2008 8:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by FliesOnly, posted 03-26-2008 7:25 AM OurCynic has not replied
 Message 203 by Blue Jay, posted 03-26-2008 9:31 PM OurCynic has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 195 of 326 (461555)
03-26-2008 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by OurCynic
03-26-2008 5:16 AM


Re: faith and science: different systems?
OurCynic writes:
Such, that in my view the older sundial method for determining time which I'll equate to religion, may no longer be as accurate as an atomic clock, which I'll equate to science respectively. So, it is difficult to find an argument with your statement.
I'm not really sure if I understand you correctly here. The sundial is a scientific instrument. It does not require faith to look at a sundial and estimate the time, so equating it to religion is a bit misleading.
And as such, "Accuracy" is not at all a fair representation of the differences between faith and science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by OurCynic, posted 03-26-2008 5:16 AM OurCynic has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024