I mean, the questions I pose describe some of the most talked about problems in the field, so standard in that sense. This basically sums up my relationship with knowledge and belief, if you are interested: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
80% in America believe in God
- Thread starter Amiga
- Start date
- Status
kurisu_1974
is on perm warning for being a low level troll
Ok sorry I'm back
But just by phrasing it like that, yes you are in the realm of religion. No one "believes" in the scientific method, it is a tool to gain knowledge. We can use it, value it even, but there no need for belief or faith. I don't have to believe the sun exists at night becasue of knowledge, not faith or belief.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Which god as god is a title.
Vicetrailia
Member
religion is just another form of control.
But in a practical sense I think it’s a good coping mechanism, but I prefer meditation.
But in a practical sense I think it’s a good coping mechanism, but I prefer meditation.
Last edited:
Excess
Member
It doesn't really have anything to do with religion itself. It has to do with the propensity of humans to interpret the world in which they see fit. If it wasn't Christianity or Islam, even Buddhism, it would be something else. Even scientism can be just as delusional: it's all they have to make sense of the world.
PaddyOCanager
Member
Ya'll are just a bunch of science bitches.
Sure, and as i replied to another user, I have no qualms with the scientific method. What I do have a problem with are people using it to produce claims that are outside its capabilities
Ok this might be where we just have to agree to disagree, then. I can't fathom how you or anyone else would be able to use the scientific method without believing that it is able to produce real knowledge. Accepting belief as an intricate part of knowledge is not controversial in the slightest and you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the field who disagrees with that.Ok sorry I'm back
kurisu_1974
is on perm warning for being a low level troll
I had to stop after the first part, where they conflate
with
which is not the same thing at all imo. It's more a semantical discussion in that way I guess. I feel that paper is trying to be a lot smarter than it actually is.
Well I disagree with that too, as I think the majority of rational thinkers would agree with me rather than you, but I don't have the numbers of course. There is no belief necessary, it is a tool that works, (or doesn't), and we can observe that and gain knowledge.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
What is outside of it's capabilities? I'll ask you again, is there a phenomenon in reality you think science can't observe and analyze?
Who knows, maybe math is intrinsic to the Universe, so if we understand all the math we can understand the whole of reality.
PaddyOCanager
Member
Science wouldn't be able explain something that is observable but not repeatable if such a phenomenon did exist.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
Like the Big Bang? It only happened once, yet we are able to observe it's effects, calculate it's age, etc.
Just because it happened only once, doesn't mean we can't explain something.
Maybe one day our computing capabilities will become so good that we can simulate the whole universe, past and future. Even the single events that humankind wasn't there to observe.
PaddyOCanager
Member
Is the Big Bang not repeatable? I really don't know; I feel like if we had the technology we could do it. I'm talking about something truly not repeatable. But yeah one day when we have enough energy time and space will become irrelevant.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
You want to repeat the start of the whole universe?
I would think the Big Bang would be the most unique thing in this universe.
PaddyOCanager
Member
I'm saying it could be done, could it not?
ThePringler
Neo Member
you might want to be careful with this one. a lot of pain, suffering, and death has been caused by Christians. You don't have to look hard to find it.
winjer
Member
I don't see how.
PaddyOCanager
Member
Ok, but that means my point is still valid.
winjer
Member
Why is it valid?
Even if it a one time occurrence and it follows the laws of physics, then it can be explained.
The Big Bang is a great example of this. It's a one time occurrence, that we can observe and explain. And with time, our models for it are becoming more and more precise.
PaddyOCanager
Member
I'm saying the Big Bang is repeatable. You're saying you don't see how, which still doesn't discount my point that science can't explain something that isn't repeatable.
thefool
Member
That's pretty interesting, only showcasing there is indeed a massive psyops against religious belief, its representation and manifestation.
I also used to be that edgy teenager who mocked (and laughed) religion. Luckily I grew up, and while I'm not a religious person at all, I'm pretty respectful over another persons religious beliefs.
Tangentially, I've also had the opportunity to see the incredible actions some churches do in their local communities, which opened my eyes to the important role they end up having.
I also used to be that edgy teenager who mocked (and laughed) religion. Luckily I grew up, and while I'm not a religious person at all, I'm pretty respectful over another persons religious beliefs.
Tangentially, I've also had the opportunity to see the incredible actions some churches do in their local communities, which opened my eyes to the important role they end up having.
winjer
Member
How is the Big Bang repeatable?
Have you seen it happen a second time? Have you register of it ever happening twice?
Or o you have a model that can prove it ill happen again?
kurisu_1974
is on perm warning for being a low level troll
Why would that be so weird? Is our Big Bang the only one, and the first one? Why wouldn't there be other universes with their own Big Bang, and why couldn't it have happened before?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe
PaddyOCanager
Member
winjer
Member
You do realize that is mere speculation. No other Big Bang as been observer, nor does it exist a model that shows one has existed.
Until someone proves the existence of a second Big Bang, we can't consider it real.
kurisu_1974
is on perm warning for being a low level troll
We have to consider the possibility tho. Only one Big Bang for all the universes and all time even before our known universe? That makes no sense to me. There only being one is also speculation btw. We just don't know.
I don't see why you think these two instances are incompatible. If Albert thinks he doesn't know the correct answer to the question, why would he believe that the answer he gave was correct? It is only semantic in the way that it is a thought experiment, as in it is merely dressing up the logic behind it. If you don't believe in the scientific method, what then makes you think it is a correct method? The way you word it makes me think that you understand belief as something that can only exist in the absence of evidence, which of course isn't true at all.
By the way that 'paper' is an entry in stanfords encyclopedia of philosophy that has been continually revised throughout the last 20 years by the leading researchers in the field (but alas, that isn't an argument in itself).
winjer
Member
You do realize the difference between an hypothesis and a theory in the scientific context?
You do realize that almost 3/4 of all published scientific papers, are not peer validated?
Just because someone wrote a paper, with an hypothesis, it doesn't mean it's real.
Last edited:
Wildebeest
Member
It is a philosophical problem. Just because someone says they are a scientist, and they observe and analyse phenomena, does that mean they have more authority than anyone else? To say yes to that, you have to believe there is no such thing as bad science, as in science that degrades our functional understanding of a subject and doesn't seem to improve over time. To get around that, people use terms to isolate such cases like pseudoscience, scientism or junk science. But there is an element of "no true Scotsman" about that argument. An example of this gray area is the field called "evolutionary psychology". It claims to have a natural phenomenon it is studying, but it also said that its methods and theories are so inadequate and twisted that they are not much more than a way of giving the scientists who work on it a licence to spread bullshit as freely as they want, and have it printed in news headlines as science.
winjer
Member
I was under the assumption that most people here knew the basics of the scientific method. Seems I was very wrong.
One of the most important steps in the scientific process is peer validation. Only when an hypothesis survives peer review, might it be considered a theory.
But even then, it will be constantly tested.
It's hard to give a satisfying answer to that question since, well, it obviously it wouldn't be able to prove whatever is unintelligeble to you as a perciever. A good example is what I posted earlier where I asked you to prove that proper use of the scientific method will always give the best possible answer. It's unprovable, since it asks the very method you are using to transcend its own nature. Again, that is an epistemic problem rather than a problem of the method, so the short answer is that its capabilites only goes so far as its epistemological foundation allows it.
I'm gonna watch a movie with the gf so I will return to this thread later.
Wildebeest
Member
Peer validation is not a get out of gaol free card. In practice, it is flawed. Then there is reproducibility, but when you talk about psychology, for example, it is never going to have the rigour of a subject like physics. In fact, it is a field that is notorious for people fiddling with their own data and getting away with it.
The best thing I have heard as a real explanation for what the "scientific method" is, at its core, is parsimony. As in, a process of creating a simplified model of natural phenomena that is neither too simple nor too complex to be useful. But today it is accepted that many things which are not useful at all, overly simple, or overly complex are all "valid science", because they are peer reviewed by people with qualifications, and so on.
winjer
Member
You are free to provide a few examples of when religion has provided a better model of reality, than science.
Correct, the scientific method has it's flaws, simply because it is made by humans.
But regardless, it is still the best method to describe the real world, that humankind has ever devised. By far.
The progress made by humankind in understanding the universe, in the last few centuries is astonishing. Nothing in the previous thousands of years come close.
Last edited:
kurisu_1974
is on perm warning for being a low level troll
He doesn't have to believe anything. He either knows or doesn"t know. If we use the term so loosely it hampers the discussion, and yes that's the immediate flaw for me in that problem. Belief and knowledge operate on seperate axis. If there is evidence, again, no believing is necessary. Again using the word in the context of this thread and not like "I don't believe my wife will make dinner tonight". And indeed I don't care where it was published or by whom, I think it wasn't well thought out or maybe just not well worded.
Sure I wasn't claiming that we can scientifically prove it at all, sorry if that sounded that way. Just when I occam's razor it I believe it is very likely. (Yes, believe. I have no proof either way and I am ready to be proven wrong).
Last edited:
winjer
Member
One of the precepts of rational thinking is that the onus of proof always lays with the affirmative.
For example, if someone claims there was another Big Bang, that person has the onus to prove it.
Simply, because it is impossible to prove a negative.
Last edited:
Wildebeest
Member
We agree up to that point. But my addition is that science can only continue to appear to be the best method of understanding the world if discernment is applied to say what science enables progress and what science is bunk that is less than helpful.
Last edited:
kurisu_1974
is on perm warning for being a low level troll
Yeah I'm well aware of burden of proof, but claiming there was only one big bang isn't exactly a negative either.
Last edited:
arkhamguy123
Member
Gonna go full non PC here; To me, you dont need to hateful unless attacked, but there is little righteousness in "respecting" grown ass adults who believe in fiction as fact. Virtue signaling like this is harmful and I don't think they need the pillows fluffed out for them. Where is the honor in validating delusional thinking? And a lot of it is strictly based on the fact that it is somehow socially acceptable.
Let's say there was a group that actually believed superman was a real person. Since childhood. I mean they were goddamn convinced. To them, superman is as real as me or you. And let's say they do these good acts in supermans name because thats what he would do. Would you "respect that"? No they'd be seen as fucking insane and probably be committed somewhere. Same shit, just not socially acceptable. I know I sound harsh but it's just the way it is to me in reality.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
The burden of proof is always on the claim. We have proof of the first. There is no proof of a second.
So until there is proof of the second Big Bang, the onus of evidence will be squarely on the claim.
The amount of hypothesis, paradigms and even theories that have been rejected, shows the commitment of the scientific community to getting to the most accurate model.
No other human activity has such a dogged pursuit for describing the real world as correct as possible. Much less religion and superstition.
No other human activity has produced better results than the scientific method. Not by a long shot.
Last edited:
kurisu_1974
is on perm warning for being a low level troll
Do we have proof that it was the first tho? Or just that it the only one we can "observe" so to speak. But I agree, and again, I never said it was proven or a fact, just highly unlikely purely in my opinion.
Wildebeest
Member
You argue that science has done a lot, more than perhaps anything else. I don't disagree.
You argue that the "scientific method" (which by your definition can be reduced to the power of peer review) is so powerful that there is no problem in the world where its power can be disputed. I don't agree.
winjer
Member
yes. Mathematical models and observations of the cosmic background radiation.
The peer review is just one part of the scientific process. And it is an important part in figuring out which hypothesis are valid and not.
If you don't know about the basis of the scientific process, please read on it. there are plenty of articles about it. I'm not going to write one here.
Last edited:
BigBooper
Member
If someone provided you the evidence, would you have the capacity to understand it? I believe that gravity exists as a force based on mass because we haven't got a better answer, but I have no idea how to prove it. You can prove it's effects, but can your prove the mechanisms?
Also, people like to take specific passages of the Bible as if that proves anything but their ignorance, not realizing that the stories are combinations of allegory, poetry, history, and many other mediums.
winjer
Member
Prove me there is a god. Any of the thousands that have been invented, and I will believe in it.
But until that day, it's just non-sense.
BigBooper
Member
I can only show you the effects, sorry.
arkhamguy123
Member
You're wasting your time. People who were indocrinated into religion as children are highly unlikely to part from it after like ~25 on. Think of it like cement. It hardens every 5 or so years until you need high power construction equipment to even crack it.
winjer
Member
LOL. No you can't.
You can only claim with faith, those effects were done by a god of set of gods.
But if you can definitely prove there is a god, any of those thousands that have been made up, you can win a Noble prize and much more.
So please, do present your finding to the scientific community.
Last edited:
kurisu_1974
is on perm warning for being a low level troll
*of the currently observable universe.
You seem convinced that current knowledge is the final stage or something.
winjer
Member
Have you observed any other universe?
Now, we can speculate about that. It's cool.
But until we got hard evidence it's nothing more than an hypothesis.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked