Jericho's Philosophy Corner

[vampko]

My experience with the scientific community (keep in mind I am NOT talking about Scientists in general. Nor science in general) has pretty much been what I stated. Even in my college classes they make you seem like an idiot if you want to believe in something besides a form of evolution.

I know that the entire Scientific Community can not be pigeon-holed into that, but at the same time, that's the only sort of experience I've had.

I've also seen countless examples of religion being ridiculed and looked down upon. I realize my experiences don't account for the entire world. But, I think, generally, it can be found that stating there is a higher power out there, will get shot down as being 'illogical'. Just like what was done in this piece that you shared with us.

[Prinapocalypse]

I thought this was interesting to think about.

An interesting article, although the author kind of seems to contradict themselves at a couple points.

They talk about the "later Queen problem", mentioning how there could easily be information that can not be discovered in the book without guessing and yet later near the end of the article they seem to act like you should disregard that possibility, since there's no way to prove it.

That's what my impression of it was, anyway. Perhaps I misinterpreted the article though.

[Redhorse]

My experience with the scientific community (keep in mind I am NOT talking about Scientists in general. Nor science in general) has pretty much been what I stated. Even in my college classes they make you seem like an idiot if you want to believe in something besides a form of evolution.

I know that the entire Scientific Community can not be pigeon-holed into that, but at the same time, that's the only sort of experience I've had.

I've also seen countless examples of religion being ridiculed and looked down upon. I realize my experiences don't account for the entire world. But, I think, generally, it can be found that stating there is a higher power out there, will get shot down as being 'illogical'. Just like what was done in this piece that you shared with us.

Those are your classes. I don't think, if you are taking a class, people are going to appreciate it if religion is brought up. Because religion isn't something factual you need to learn about in college, and if you want to discuss it that is what church is for. There are reasons they need to be kept separated.

Then I don't see how this can be stated like fact, really, if it's only backed up by a small amount of evidence.

It will because it is possible to interpret it that way. I am curious as to why you (not just you, actually) are bothered by this at all.
faith is really a form of knowledge. Like faith, it would be odd to claim to know something while holding that it may in fact be false. When someone says they know something, we typically may ask them how they know it. So asking is a request for the reasons or evidence one has for what is said to be known. If a person is unable to provide reasons or evidence, we have cause to doubt their knowledge. If I were to say; "I don't just believe that there is life on other planets in the universe, I know it", I will be obliged to offer my evidence. If I cannot give adequate evidence, you are within rights to say that I don't "know" that at all.

Faith seems to differ from knowledge in this respect. While some religious people do point to miracles, prophesies, and sacred texts as evidence of articles of faith, it remains that much of what faith holds is essentially mysterious. To treat religious faith as a kind of knowledge akin to scientific knowledge or historical knowledge changes the nature of what many people seem to express in their having faith. A deep faith in the love of God is not a matter of having employed a systematic testing procedure. On some accounts, for that matter, faith is precisely what one holds to in the absence of evidence and proof. This view fits some aspects of faith. If we had proof that God existed, there would be no need for faith. An incident consistent with this notion of faith is described in the New Testament (John: 20.)

Also, that was not the point of the letter...
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

edit:

They talk about the "later Queen problem", mentioning how there could easily be information that can not be discovered in the book without guessing and yet later near the end of the article they seem to act like you should disregard that possibility, since there's no way to prove it.

Well, the point to the problem is that there isn't anything you can do about it. It should be disregarded because there really isn't any way to go against the "later Queen problem". The only thing you can really do about it is acknowledge that it exists.

edit 2:
For clarification, since I figure I can never clarify enough, my responses aren't upset, angry, or condescending in the least (these are the three conclusions jumped to the most often in these sort of discussions). As always, I am in a state of a sort of silly excitement when it comes to talking about these things ~ However, there exists the possibility that that may be hard to tell, since I don't use many smileys when I am serious.

[JerichoDeath]

On the off-chance that someone misinterprets the concept of "Logic" or "Rationality":
The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4

[Prinapocalypse]

Well, the point to the problem is that there isn't anything you can do about it. It should be disregarded because there really isn't any way to go against the "later Queen problem". The only thing you can really do about it is acknowledge that it exists.

That is the way science looks at it, I guess. Science tends to disregard other possibilities, unless science is proven wrong.

And that's also the main thing I dislike about it. I prefer to keep a much more open mind to such things and leave such things to personal opinion.

[vampko]

On my phone right now. Anyway I apologize if I offended anyome. The class I have actively bashes religion it puts me in not is good a mood

[Redhorse]

May also help to know the difference between "belief" and "knowledge". I'm not going to assume people don't already know that, but just throwing it out anyway.

[Prinapocalypse]

May also help to know the difference between "belief" and "knowledge". I'm not going to assume people don't already know that, but just throwing it out anyway.

I know the difference.

The problems start when someone acts like "knowledge"="fact". Which is what I see, all too often.

[Redhorse]

That is the way science looks at it, I guess. Science tends to disregard other possibilities, unless science is proven wrong.

Um...

@vampko: Nah, it's cool.

[Prinapocalypse]

Perhaps I worded that a bit wrong, but what I was basically trying to say is, the scientific community comes to a consensus on something and then basically disregards all other options, until something comes along that conflicts with that consensus.

There's no absolute truth to the decision they come to, but they regard it as such in many cases.

[JerichoDeath]

Perhaps I worded that a bit wrong, but what I was basically trying to say is, the scientific community comes to a consensus on something and then basically disregards all other options, until something comes along that conflicts with that consensus.

There's no absolute truth to the decision they come to, but they regard it as such in many cases.

Redhorse-san had a good reaction:

Um...

There's a reason that many of those things are called "Theories", not "Laws". Still, you are right in that older scientists tend to make less discoveries than younger ones due to being set in their ways, I have heard.

[Redhorse]

Perhaps I worded that a bit wrong, but what I was basically trying to say is, the scientific community comes to a consensus on something and then basically disregards all other options, until something comes along that conflicts with that consensus.

There's no absolute truth to the decision they come to, but they regard it as such in many cases.

Far from it; it depends on the discipline and the people. :p Just cause your a scientist doesn't mean you agree with something exactly, just as being Christian doesn't mean we have this huge hive mind on one thing. There are some things, however, which are universally accepted to be true. It isn't like they pull these laws out of their collective ass, mind you. They have an inordinate amount of evidence to back it up; it isn't as if it's some opinion with nothing to support it. It's like saying "Hey science community, I believe the sun revolves around the Earth." Of course they'd tell you your wrong, because they have literal tons of evidence while you have only a statement. It's only right that they should; they aren't about to give beetle feces to people as a cure for cancer just because some person with no evidence "believes" it'll cure cancer. They have responsibilities and their work has to be credible. A fact is something that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you see. =P
Besides, if you don't believe the same things they do, it isn't like they're going to care much. What you believe is what you believe. Yet if there was a guy who told you to wear underwear on your head all day because it would protect you from government mind beams, I doubt you'd say "Hey, let's all regard that as truth just because and regard it as being equal with proven science which has ALL this evidence and send out a statement recommending everyone wear underwear on their heads." You'd call them a bunch of idiots for doing something like that. They leave you alone with your opinions and you leave them alone with their science while they use it to aid the world by doing things such as discovering how to make airplanes fly, and everybody wins. It's just that simple.

And then there are always people who say what everyone dreads. "You don't KNOW that for sure." And people say this without knowing anything themselves, like a child who comes into a room full of adults and says "Hey, don't drink that glass of wine." People tend to criticize things they don't even understand; it's almost embarrassing to watch at times. Worse, there are times they don't admit it and actually think what they're saying is fact. So basically I see this thing the opposite of the way you seem to; I think it's ordinary people in general who come up with some consensus that's completely untrue; it's even more embarrassing when they are called out on it. "Huh, what? Letting my children swim less than 30 minutes after eating won't cause them to drown.. oh.. sorry for the fuss I guess" when only a few minutes before, they might've been vehemently protesting against something. Even worse, most people just keep on believing they're in the right and criticize others for it. Like that child I mentioned earlier. People can be quite stubborn, if I do say so myself.

@Jericho: I said "um" because I didn't have anything to say to that, really. It just was so... .. what???

Actually, the word "theory" is commonly misunderstood to mean that it isn't proven. Due to the word theory being used differently in everyday language. Theories and laws are the same, only a law describes something and a theory explains "why". Both are factual.

Also, have I earned any points lately?

[JerichoDeath]

Perhaps, but aren't theories proven wrong from time to time?
So, should I have used the word "hypothesis"?

Points:
You get +2 for the text wall and -1 for asking about points~

[Prinapocalypse]

@Redhorse - You kind of made some silly comparisons there. Since I obviously don't think scientists should consider everything any random person says as fact. But they tend to disregard things such as ghosts easily, even though a large amount of people claim to see them. Things like that should be left with a question mark, instead of shrugging it off as hallucinations, etc, since it's not something that can be tested in a lab.

Also about scientists not being a hive mind: No their not, but I find many act like they are. And scientists that disagree with a consensus are obviously going to be looked down upon by those that agree with it.

Actually, the word "theory" is commonly misunderstood to mean that it isn't proven. Due to the word theory being used differently in everyday language. Theories and laws are the same, only a law describes something and a theory explains "why". Both are factual.

This would explain why most act rudely, if you disagree with a theory....

Anyway, it's pretty clear we disagree strongly on the matter, so I'll just leave it at that, I guess.

[vampko]

Back to the Ryukishi thing, first of all, the guy seems like a prick.

Now, on topic about the Ryukishi thing...

It is true that there's no way to truly solve a mystery without any possibility of it being true, but I disagree with it being called 'anti-mystery'. Mystery is the journey or the allure to discover truth. Even if you never discover truth, you've still taken the journey. I'm not sure what would be a better word to describe it, but anti-mystery just doesn't make sense to me.

I of course, am nowhere near the 'anti-fantasy' world. Though I do use much logic to come to the conclusions I've made. It's harder to show others the evidence and proof I've acquired (sometimes impossible really), but I don't come to these conclusions with a silly notion.

That is all I will say on that. Back on topic : This goes back to Truth, and the question of whether it really is attainable. There always could very well be something we missed. And as with those who add things on later, we can't really prove that it was thought of after the fact.

Though, I think my major problem with following the reasoning going on in that piece, is that I am not 'Anti-fantasy'. My cognitive processes work considerably different. I really need to get around to going through these V/N's sometime so I can see what sort of thoughts/ideas I may come up with as it plays out.