Page 1 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

alex
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,171
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

29 Dec 2007, 10:37 am

Image


_________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexplank

Personal FB: http://fb.me/alexplank1


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Dec 2007, 10:44 am

The question now is: how many scientists, instead of properly using the science chart, end up using the faith chart? The number is probably less in the hard sciences and disturbingly high in the soft ones.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Dec 2007, 10:48 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The question now is: how many scientists, instead of properly using the science chart, end up using the faith chart? The number is probably less in the hard sciences and disturbingly high in the soft ones.


Particularly in sociology, anthropology, psychology, political "science", and even in biology.



alex
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,171
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

29 Dec 2007, 10:49 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The question now is: how many scientists, instead of properly using the science chart, end up using the faith chart? The number is probably less in the hard sciences and disturbingly high in the soft ones.


i'd call those folks pseudo scientists...


_________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexplank

Personal FB: http://fb.me/alexplank1


DeanFoley
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 354
Location: England-Birmingham

29 Dec 2007, 10:56 am

The charts sum it up perfectly.



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

29 Dec 2007, 11:05 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The question now is: how many scientists, instead of properly using the science chart, end up using the faith chart? The number is probably less in the hard sciences and disturbingly high in the soft ones.


Particularly in sociology, anthropology, psychology, political "science", and even in biology.


No, not in biology. A particularly stubborn and incompetent scientist, maybe, but a valid idea must stand up to the most rigorous of scrutiny.

I absolutely love the chart, though.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Dec 2007, 11:49 am

alex wrote:
i'd call those folks pseudo scientists...

The soft sciences, or the fellows so caught up in confirmation bias that they cannot effectively be scientific?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Dec 2007, 11:57 am

Another question is where does a lot of what we know or act like we know come from: faith or science? And what areas of our lives are governed by faith and what areas are governed by science? I mean, it must be understood that no person is purely scientific, unless they are dead, because science cannot answer questions of purpose and oughtness, both of which are necessary for action. Therefore, the question arises in each of us.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

29 Dec 2007, 12:24 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The question now is: how many scientists, instead of properly using the science chart, end up using the faith chart? The number is probably less in the hard sciences and disturbingly high in the soft ones.
Particularly in sociology, anthropology, psychology, political "science", and even in biology.

"The Theory of Mind" being a very good example. It turns out they aren't actually sure what the tests measure!! :lol:
And empathising vs. systemising quotients which pretend to measure something inborn rather than socially conditioned.

8)



Last edited by ouinon on 29 Dec 2007, 12:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

29 Dec 2007, 12:26 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Another question is where does a lot of what we know or act like we know come from: faith or science? And what areas of our lives are governed by faith and what areas are governed by science? I mean, it must be understood that no person is purely scientific, unless they are dead, because science cannot answer questions of purpose and oughtness, both of which are necessary for action. Therefore, the question arises in each of us.


This is a very good point.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

29 Dec 2007, 12:29 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Another question is where does a lot of what we know or act like we know come from: faith or science? And what areas of our lives are governed by faith and what areas are governed by science?
This is a very good point.

Yes, how much questions of identity and belonging for instance, of explaining ourselves satisfactorily to ourselves, make us susceptible/vulnerable to accepting ideas popularised because they make a lot of people feel better/relieved/safer and not because they have much scientific basis. Faith disguised as science, and just like in cinema the "special effects" for making faith look like science are increasingly sophisticated!

8)



Last edited by ouinon on 29 Dec 2007, 12:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Witt
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Pandemonium Europa

29 Dec 2007, 12:34 pm

Hehe,Americans have finally discovered modernism....

That belief in science as ultimate and only tool of explaining reality was quite popular in continental Europe,to the level of violent imposing of this same belief.
This notion is rejected from 1940-es onwards,after collapse of Logical positivist school,when they finally have seen that scientific knowledge is based on premises,which are based on interpretations,and these interpretations are again based on beliefs.
In simpler terms,if we have an idea,evidences would always support this idea,since evidences are interpreted through this idea.

Main problem in reason is that he just create conclusion from premises.
In logical sense premises may be false,but the answer would still be true,since in logic only formal structure of argument is important,not its content.
Anything may be considered as premise,and premises and their truthfulness depends on belief,not knowledge,since premises are irrational as such.
Knowledge is conclusion that we draw from premises.

'Understanding the universe' only depends of interpretation.
Classical Greeks consider as material elements four aggregate states of matter (hard,liquid,gas,energy),while modern science use different interpretation of elements,based on atomic structures.
Is it classical Greek definition 'incorrect'?
Facts depends on interpretations about what actually is considered fact.

Algorithm presented in here that represent 'science' is actually example of circulatory definition of established belief.
I use facts to confirm the hypothesis,but I also use hypothesis to interpret facts.

Using science to confirm and reject metaphysical concepts is like using Chemistry and Chemical terminology in attempt to confirm phenomenon of music,or poetry.
Such Chemists have to reject both poetry and music as 'nonsense',since it cannot be defined through chemical terms.


P.S

Problem in most Americans,and lots of English speaking people is that they never actually experienced 'enlightenment' of Atheism and Science(in its absolute form) like lots of people in European continent.
Its funny(and annoying) to see this Jacobin/Bolshevik zeal in young internet geeks,but I can understand it in some sense.
Western societies are formally 'religious' (USA in particular),so fighting against that makes them 'rebels' and 'elite'.

"Most people are stupid and ignorant,but we are smart and intelligent.....therefore we know what is best for them".

This belief is source of all dictatorships and genocides in last 200 years.

How society based solely on science and atheism would look like is best explained in 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley...and its very grim.

Belief that quantitative and deterministic interpretation of reality(science) is only possible one is totalitarian in its basis.


P.P.S

Quote:
Image



According to 'Occam's razor' ,the second definition seems to be more simpler and more practical...and its not circular like first one. :wink:

Also I think that second one is 'Straw man argument' of what belief is.


_________________
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"

Jack Torrance


Last edited by Witt on 29 Dec 2007, 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

29 Dec 2007, 12:39 pm

Witt wrote:
According to 'Occam's razor' ,the second definition seems to be more simpler and more practical...and its not circular like first one.


Occam's Razor is only viable if both ideas are equally valid. Claiming that "God created everything" is indeed a simpler process than Evolution, but in spite of it's simplicity it lacks any sort of scientific validity.



Witt
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Pandemonium Europa

29 Dec 2007, 12:54 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
Witt wrote:
According to 'Occam's razor' ,the second definition seems to be more simpler and more practical...and its not circular like first one.


Occam's Razor is only valid if both ideas are equally valid. Claiming that "God created everything" is indeed a simpler process than Evolution, but in spite of it's simplicity it lacks scientific validity.


Its lacks scientific validity,since modern science is based on naturalistic premise,that God is not important.But this BELIEF is based on the idea of late 19 century science.
Science started and continued to be fully theistic until 19 century.
As matter of fact scientific method started with God as necessary hypothesis,since if God didn't exist than nature could not be defined rationally.
And if nature can be defined rationally,then this imply that there is something in nature that is rational,and rationality is manifestation of intelligence.
This is at least what Descartes,Gallileo,Newton and others strongly implied,and they were architects of modern science and scientific method.
Robert Boyle (father of modern Chemistry) was even Christian fundamentalist.

Rejecting of God as supreme principle of nature and main 'regulative idea of knowledge as such' is result of infiltration of Atheist and Materialist world views that were popular in 19 century,not result as science as such.
For Atheist scientists God is not necessary hypothesis,but for Theistic one God is absolute necessity.

Atheistic belief that nature is enough to explain nature is tautological in same manner as Theistic that God can explain God as such.
Both are irrational and are frameworks of interpretation of reality,not 'evidence;,because evidences are interpreted through frameworks of established BELIEFS.


_________________
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"

Jack Torrance


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

29 Dec 2007, 8:24 pm

and this is why faith is no good, :jesterLoL


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

29 Dec 2007, 8:53 pm

Witt wrote:
This notion is rejected from 1940-es onwards,after collapse of Logical positivist school,when they finally have seen that scientific knowledge is based on premises,which are based on interpretations,and these interpretations are again based on beliefs.
In simpler terms,if we have an idea,evidences would always support this idea,since evidences are interpreted through this idea.


Splendid! You've hit the nail better than I could have hoped. :hail:


_________________
* here for the nachos.