Perceptions of Reality v3

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.

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?

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

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.)

Faith and theology are not the same thing.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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! ...

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.

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.

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.

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?