Author Topic: Science is entirely based on faith  (Read 7052 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +657/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #145 on: January 04, 2013, 03:29:00 PM »
If it's not falsifiable, it's useless as an explanation about anything.  So it's Dominic's job to show us how it is falsifiable.

Dominic will claim that the physical-reality paradigm is also unfalsifiable.  And he's right.

Maybe.  But that is the only thing we have to respond to.  I cannot respond to a "spiritual" world I do not perceive and have no way of detecting.  I have to respond to the material world, the only world which I am able to perceive, whether it is a dream or not.  And really, that is the one Dominic also perceives and to which he responds, because none of us really have a choice about it.  We are doing the only thing we can do.  That really does not require faith.  Which was the whole point he was trying to make in this thread.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #146 on: January 04, 2013, 04:23:52 PM »
Dominic,

Can you point us to the source of the second paradigm - maybe a web page of the author, please?

I can't point to a precise source because this idea goes way back to ancient philosophers probably before the origins of Hinduism but I can point to a recent proponent who has tried to bring the concept to a more mainstream audience.  His name is Peter Russell.

This could be a good place to start for a summary -
http://www.peterrussell.com/SCG/ideal.php

This is his home page -
http://www.peterrussell.com/index2.php

This is an hour talk he did on the topic -

And here is the first 9 mins if you'd rather have it in easier to manage chunks -

The problem that Descartes had, and I pointed this out earlier, was that to have a conciousness, you have to have an organ that will recognise that consciousness. The organ has to be physical. If it is physical, it occupies space and time.

We call it our "brain" and it must be a part of reality. For a brain to exist, there must be a supply of energy from somewhere.

Gb,

It sounds like you are simply assuming a physical paradigm ie 'you have to have an organ to recognise consciousness and it must be physical'.

The idea that perception can only occur through a physical organ is simply a dogma (assumption) within the physical paradigm.


Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #147 on: January 04, 2013, 04:31:10 PM »
Ok, some of you are asking some good questions and I acknowledge that I may not yet have all the answers.

Having said that, here is my reasoning for why there is similar shared experience by separate consciousnesses (you and me) within the physical world -

Without language to differentiate between 'things' (ie naming of experiences), there is just one single whole undifferentiated consciousness (the 'unity' of eastern philosophy).  This is reflected by individuals experiencing an objective (ie shared) 'world'.  However, as individuals (by use of language to designate a separate self) we also strive for a personal and unique experience.  This is reflected by our personal subjective experiences (emotions, feelings, desires, will, thought etc).


But why (you ask) should we choose the seemingly complicated and abstruse consciousness paradigm rather than the more obvious physical sense based reality ?

1. Because physical reality can be doubted (eg a dream) but the doubter's consciousness cannot be doubted.

2. Because we know how consciousness can produce sense perception (eg a dream) but we do not know whether or not matter can produce consciousness.

3. Because the physical world is subject to cause and effect which means that the first cause (which itself had no cause) is not part of the physical world.

4. Because consciousness is readily associated with perception, emotions, thoughts, feelings, ideas, will, desire etc - but matter is not.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 05:30:17 PM by Dominic »

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #148 on: January 04, 2013, 04:50:34 PM »
Regarding falsifiability, this is a requirement for a scientific theory (according to Popper and many others) and I accept that requirement for science.  However, science relates only to testing within physical experience (objective shared experience).

But when choosing a paradigm, I don't see how falsifiability can apply.  When choosing a paradigm we are working within subjective experience only.  Eg should I assume that my senses provide accurate truth regarding reality ?  This question must be answered before choosing a paradigm.  In effect, before choosing a paradigm, science does not yet exist! and thus falsifiability does not yet exist.

On the face of it that sounds like a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, but I need to point out again that this was always true at the moment when an individual first chooses or adopts a paradigm.  I am simply highlighting that fact.


« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 04:52:39 PM by Dominic »

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #149 on: January 04, 2013, 04:53:04 PM »
Ok, some of you are asking some good questions and I acknowledge that I may not yet have all the answers.

Having said that, here is my reasoning for why there is similar shared experience by separate consciousnesses (you and me) within the physical world -

Without language to differentiate between 'things' (ie naming of experiences), there is just one single whole undifferentiated consciousness (the 'unity' of eastern philosophy).  This is reflected by individuals experiencing a common objective (ie shared) 'world'.  However, as individuals (by use of language to designate a separate self) we also strive for a personal and unique experience.  This is reflected by our personal subjective experiences (emotions, feelings, desires, will, thought etc).

So what, exactly do you mean by an 'undifferentiated consciousness' and what might it be? How do individuals interact with it? Is it supposed to be, in effect, a god of some sort.



But why (you ask) should we choose the seemingly complicated and abstruse consciousness paradigm rather than the more obvious physical sense based reality ?

Quote
1. Because physical reality can be doubted (eg a dream) but the doubter's consciousness cannot be doubted.

Most people, I think, can easily recognise the dream from what they would call reality. I don't think most of us would have a problem with this. As such it rather weakens this idea that we can doubt reality - I really don't think people do.

Quote
2. Because we know how consciousness can produce sense perception (eg a dream) but we do not know whether or not matter can produce consciousness.

Well, if we know that consciousness can produce sense perception, then we get back to the problem of what this consciousness actually is. It can't be based on the brain but would have to be separate from it yet appears to stop working when the brain does. Consciousness seems to be tied up with the brain (because it seems to stop when the brain does) so that we would need to explain what the connection is precisely.
3. Because the physical world is subject to cause and effect which means that the first cause (which itself had no cause) is not part of the physical world.

Quote
4. Because consciousness is readily associated with perception, emotions, thoughts, feelings, ideas, will, desire etc - but matter is not.

So? Rocks and cars don't produce consciousness? Of course not! but so what? This is not an argument for anything. Most of us on this forum would say the consciousness is an emergent quality of the brain (a thing of matter) and so that the things you list do emerge from matter.


To conclude, Occam and his sharp razor. That the brain produces consciousness requires one less item that your explanation as you have to posit an 'undifferentiated consciousness' in order to explain what we all perceive. Occam would slice that off!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #150 on: January 04, 2013, 04:55:47 PM »

[When I edit/modify my posts I am simply fixing typos or occasionally changing one word to a slightly better one with a very similar meaning]


Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #151 on: January 04, 2013, 07:20:48 PM »
You are thinking in the Physical Paradigm where consciousness somehow emerges from matter.

No I’m not – read what I wrote - under your paradigm 2 (Russell’s  idea) natural selection can’t work.

Russell is talking about consciousness being the most basic 'unit' of reality.  Natural selection then is a phenomenon or process within consciousness.  In this framework (paradigm) natural selection is in fact consciousness at work.  ['Unit' is an inappropriate word but it gives the gist]

Exactly – and it can’t work.  Natural selection works by action of the environment (reality) on the fitness of phenotypes (reality) to permit them to reproduce their genotype or not. It doesn’t work in the ether of consciousness – get it?
You are suggesting that consciousness conjures up countless artifacts of processes that require geological time to work, in the absence of your own consciousness.   It’s as daft as the creationist doctrine that the universe was created with “apparent age”.


If consciousness is the basis of reality then physical manifestations such as zits are (to borrow from Douglas Adams) mostly harmless.

It doesn’t matter that they are “mostly harmless” – I’m asking about ontology.  What is at the root of a zit inside consciousness?


I'll give a hypothetical answer for zits but its not meant to be literally true but it will explain the principle at work.
Zits are a sign that something is not quite right.  It is a signal to the individual that he needs to look at his diet and/or environment to see where some beneficial changes could be made.  The zits themselves are very rarely dangerous but if it is an extreme case then perhaps there is a more urgent need to assess diet and lifestyle.
Zits then are a feedback system designed to inform and assist the 'sufferer'.

Why would the sufferer of zits need to look at his “diet” or “environment”.   Surely the owner of the zit, once conscious of his consciousness, he should look to his consciousness under your paradigm 2 – where the zits and diet and environment emanate from.   Or can one cross between the two paradigms depending on whether one is in reality or in lala land?


Until I have better knowledge I will put Alzheimer's into the same category as zits but a more extreme example indicating a more serious warning about diet and lifestyle - possibly a long term effect of ingesting unhealthy substances which find their way into our processed food supply.

Same problem as above – you are mixing up the sources of your realities.  And you haven't given me a reason why consciousness would dim itself.

My attempts at explaining time would be amateur if I attempted it.  But I'll make this suggestion - consciousness as a whole does not age.  Consciousness experiences, observes and learns.  The perception of a physical universe manifests mostly as changing forms but these are simply images presented to consciousness or within consciousness.  They are just one particular subset of consciousness.  To use an analogy, the images in a movie may convey twenty years of change under the influence of time in the story, while the observer (viewer) is largely unaffected by time.

Dominic, if consciousness does not age then why would our bodies (created by consciousness) age relentlessly?  Why would worms, bacteria, and fungi eat our bodies, sometimes before we are dead, and carry on after we are dead.

Say I was driving in the desert and came across a stranded stranger, almost dead and with one eye already picked out by a vulture sitting nearby.  Just before saving the bloke I took a photo of the scene and showed it to you 2 years later.  Whose consciousness created the reality:
-   the vulture, or
-   the one eyed survivor, or
-   me the photographer, or
-   you the observer of the photograph?

More importantly WHEN was the reality created?

NDEs suggest that consciousness continues even when the heart and breathing are stopped and when brain activity is minimal.  I know that we talk of 'unconsciousness' from anaesthesia and/or from bodily injuries but I suggest that this is a change of consciousness states, not an ending of consciousness.  During NDEs people report more vivid, coherent, meaningful and 'real' experiences than in their normal lives.  We actually know very little of what consciousness is capable of.

We’ve done NDEs to death.  There are reasonable explanations.  You make them rise again like zombies who have been shot down many times before.   Dominic, how do you define “near death”?  How is it calibrated?  Is a person tripping on LCD having a NDE?  They also have vivid hallucinations. 

How do you define "meaningful" - that a person almost killed by a suicide bomber suddenly believes the prophet Mohammed because he remembers seeing a bright light and hearing voices after being operated on and resuscitated using science?

One theory is that the 'higher being' is the totality of consciousness (whatever that may turn out to be) and we as individuals are each experiencing a subset of that totality in accordance with our current beliefs, senses, understanding.

Finally something I can agree with.  The lower ranked consciousnesses all together creating the ‘higher being’.
A clusterfuck of lala woowoo.  I have been to many different churches and religious gatherings and have seen that process in action.  I will have no further part in it thank you.
Git mit uns

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #152 on: January 04, 2013, 08:01:41 PM »
  What is at the root of a zit inside consciousness?
Religion.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Skinz

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm young, uneducated & raising kids. Fear.
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #153 on: January 04, 2013, 08:13:37 PM »
On the topic of NDEs, I have had chemically induced experiences which match the average NDE, including out of body, total clarity, seeing and speaking to dead loved ones, and a light, as bright and warm as the distant explosion of a nuclear bomb, far above me.

But it wasn't God, it was DMT.

A chemical reaction and electrical impulses in my brain caused me to perceive these things, just like a chemical reaction and electrical impulses allow me to perceive everything else. Despite my hippydom and myriad mind expanding activities, I'm not sure consciousness, as an all inclusive and paranormal construct, exists. The things I've experienced are all explained perfectly well by current science.
"Science changes it's views based on what's observed; Religion ignores the facts so that faith may be preserved."

- Tim Minchin, Comedian.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2709
  • Darwins +219/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #154 on: January 04, 2013, 11:54:22 PM »
but we do not know whether or not matter can produce consciousness.

It's not the matter that produces consciousness, so much as the algorithm.

Say you've got some sim creatures in a computer vat, and you know that they are not conscious, because you did not program consciousness into them.

So, what can you do to fool them into thinking they are conscious, when you know they can never be conscious?

You start creating an algorithm that looks at itself, and says "Yeah, I'm experiencing that". Then every time the creature tries to analyze itself, it keeps bumping into your algorithm that tells it that it is analyzing itself, and is experiencing impossible things, when it's actually not experiencing anything at all - just the algorithm convinces itself. It can't beat the algorithm, and then realize that it's not conscious at all. That's almost impossible for it to conceive, because this way of thought is so deeply embedded in it.

You can't start with the assumption that consciousness is something that magically transcends matter. You have to prove that it's not just an algorithm fooling itself.

The hallmarks in the error of pretending it's somehow above matter, is that we are slowly dissecting our brains, and by subtracting bits, seeing that it all must be constructed in the brain. Worse, still, the alternative consciousnesses are obviously still constructed in aberrant modes.

Another problem is that consciousness seems to be in most mammals and birds, which means that from an evolutionary POV, it has a use in even things which don't really need consciousness. I look at an Australian Bull Ant, and to me, the way it behaves looks conscious. So, can a brain that small support consciousness? Look at the way a lorikeet behaves



Brain the size of a peanut, and yet obviously conscious. How big is consciousness? Could be very small.



Could be way less of a thing than we think it is.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #155 on: January 05, 2013, 03:38:12 AM »
Without language to differentiate between 'things' (ie naming of experiences), there is just one single whole undifferentiated consciousness (the 'unity' of eastern philosophy).  This is reflected by individuals experiencing a common objective (ie shared) 'world'.  However, as individuals (by use of language to designate a separate self) we also strive for a personal and unique experience.  This is reflected by our personal subjective experiences (emotions, feelings, desires, will, thought etc).

So what, exactly do you mean by an 'undifferentiated consciousness' and what might it be? How do individuals interact with it? Is it supposed to be, in effect, a god of some sort.

Yes, I'd like some clarification of this as well.  How do "individuals" come to be in a "single whole undifferentiated consciousness"?  In the physical paradigm, this is easily addressed.  What is the explanation for the consciousness paradigm?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #156 on: January 05, 2013, 08:55:38 PM »
Science is based on philosophy, not faith.

The details of the scientific method are defined by philosophers. e.g. Popper's principle of falsifiability. Popper was a philosopher.

Science is based on logic. Logic is a branch of philosophy.

Science cannot address the most important existential questions in life, such as how a person should behave. That's the province of ethics - a branch of philosophy.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #157 on: January 06, 2013, 12:09:23 AM »
While I don't think we can conclude that consciousness is an illusion, an algorithm to keep something that's not conscious from realizing that it isn't, I do think we can't escape the fact that consciousness cannot exist without a storage medium, and if that storage medium is destroyed, the consciousness is also destroyed.

Offline chrisinmd

  • Novice
  • Posts: 1
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #158 on: January 06, 2013, 01:52:36 AM »
I agree that the bible is full inaccurate information and belief in it is based on faith.  The question I have a hard time dealing with is if life was created by just some random chemical reaction then who created the chemicals?  I get that response from many people who believe?  Thoughts?

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #159 on: January 06, 2013, 02:05:50 AM »
... then who created the chemicals? ...

Where did the creator get its knowledge?
Git mit uns

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #160 on: January 06, 2013, 04:07:27 AM »
I agree that the bible is full inaccurate information and belief in it is based on faith.  The question I have a hard time dealing with is if life was created by just some random chemical reaction then who created the chemicals?  I get that response from many people who believe?  Thoughts?

Simply put, the big bang generated the matter we see today. Where's the problem?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Skinz

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm young, uneducated & raising kids. Fear.
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #161 on: January 06, 2013, 05:46:32 AM »
I agree that the bible is full inaccurate information and belief in it is based on faith.  The question I have a hard time dealing with is if life was created by just some random chemical reaction then who created the chemicals?  I get that response from many people who believe?  Thoughts?

A good question! Only within the last 40 years have we actually done experiments thay may one day lead to the definitive answer. However, the landmark experiment[1] 100% proves that with the most basic molecule (Hydrogen, or hydrogen based gases, which are absolutley everywhere throughout the universe) and lightning (Observed on almost every planet we know of with gases), you can within hours make complex organic molecules. They aren't nearly as complex as DNA, but they can replicate and are the basis for amino acids. With a the profusion of variety that would occur outside a controlled experiment, and given time, is't not only plausible but very likely these organic molecules would form into amino acids. DNA comes next, and once DNA is established, what we call life is almost inevitable on any clement world.

This means that the likelyhood of some basic form of life within our solar system is very, very high... An idea I find truly awesome :) Maybe, within our lifetimes, we will know. Sorry, geekgasm ;)

EDIT: Hydrogen is not a molecule. Oops.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 07:03:50 AM by Skinz »
"Science changes it's views based on what's observed; Religion ignores the facts so that faith may be preserved."

- Tim Minchin, Comedian.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #162 on: January 06, 2013, 06:46:17 AM »
The problem that Descartes had, and I pointed this out earlier, was that to have a conciousness, you have to have an organ that will recognise that consciousness. The organ has to be physical. If it is physical, it occupies space and time.

We call it our "brain" and it must be a part of reality. For a brain to exist, there must be a supply of energy from somewhere.

Gb,

It sounds like you are simply assuming a physical paradigm ie 'you have to have an organ to recognise consciousness and it must be physical'.
Yes, I am assuming a physical paradigm but "simply" is not an appropriate adverb, and you know it. You make it sound as if there might be some lack of though on the 99.999% of the world who would dismiss anything other than a physical paradigm. More to the point, I am doing that because anything else is ludicrous - as someone else said, "your idea is so bad it isn't even wrong." You have copied an idea that is basically unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be accepted... yet you think it is reasonable.

Quote
The idea that perception can only occur through a physical organ is simply a dogma (assumption) within the physical paradigm.
That statement is without foundation - and you can provide nothing to support this new proposed addition to the sum of human experience. It is for you to show that this might be the case, and, you can't, thus I think we can dismiss it out of hand. We can do this as it is unfalsifiable. You would not accept that there is an invisible hippopotamus in my garden, why should anyone credit your interpretation of Descartes with any truth? I should not even be a talking point for the seriously minded.

All that your adopting of this philosophy does is to say that "We can do nothing, we are powerless, there can be no progress as everything might be different from the way we perceive it." The fact that there is progress seems prima facie evidence of your error.

There is no logical reason why we should not make an assumption that is entirely in accord with our world as we perceive it, and it would not matter in the slightest if were it wrong - it would still be true for all of us and all generations. So in basic terms, Descartes idea on this matter was trivial.

Next, you are suggesting that everything is (or may be) illusory, including our perceptions and the means of perceiving them. This does not accord with our knowledge of illusion; illusion is subjective and hence highly varied. You cannot answer why some illusions do vary, whilst others do not - at least you can't do it without inventing some more garbage.

You and I both know that Descartes discarded perception as unreliable but, and inexplicably, claimed that the only method was deduction, yet as Plato had decided many years before, how can we deduce anything reliably if the tools of deduction are based entirely on perception?

As a matter of honesty, you should state why Descartes, frustrated at the question he could not answer, eventually said words to the effect of, "You'll just have to accept it." and it wasn't because his audience was not perceptive...

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #163 on: January 06, 2013, 08:30:16 AM »
Without language to differentiate between 'things' (ie naming of experiences), there is just one single whole undifferentiated consciousness (the 'unity' of eastern philosophy).  This is reflected by individuals experiencing a common objective (ie shared) 'world'.  However, as individuals (by use of language to designate a separate self) we also strive for a personal and unique experience.  This is reflected by our personal subjective experiences (emotions, feelings, desires, will, thought etc).

So what, exactly do you mean by an 'undifferentiated consciousness' and what might it be? How do individuals interact with it? Is it supposed to be, in effect, a god of some sort.

Yes, I'd like some clarification of this as well.  How do "individuals" come to be in a "single whole undifferentiated consciousness"?  In the physical paradigm, this is easily addressed.  What is the explanation for the consciousness paradigm?

Analogy 1 - a microcosm

A human body can be thought of as a single unit (a whole) or as trillions of cells.  We usually consider reality from the body's perspective but we could also attempt to understand reality from a cell's perspective.  That reality would be very different.

In this analogy, undifferentiated consciousness is the body and separate individuals are the cells.


Analogy 2 - a macrocosm

A society can be thought of as a single unit (a whole) or as millions of people.  We usually consider reality from the individual person's perspective but we can and do sometimes try and think from society's perspective.

In this analogy, undifferentiated consciousness is the society and separate individuals are the people.


« Last Edit: January 06, 2013, 09:08:20 AM by Dominic »

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #164 on: January 06, 2013, 08:45:47 AM »
Science is based on philosophy, not faith.

The details of the scientific method are defined by philosophers. e.g. Popper's principle of falsifiability. Popper was a philosopher.

Science is based on logic. Logic is a branch of philosophy.

Science cannot address the most important existential questions in life, such as how a person should behave. That's the province of ethics - a branch of philosophy.

And does our philosophy not require faith ?  If you make a philosophical claim and you believe it true do you not have faith in your assertion ?

Any philosophical claim requires faith if we actually believe that a claim is true.



Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4363
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #165 on: January 06, 2013, 08:52:30 AM »
And does our philosophy not require faith ?

No, it does not.  We do not take the Law of Identity, the Law of Noncontradiction, and the Law of the Excluded Middle on faith.  Those laws are true because it is impossible for them to be false.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #166 on: January 06, 2013, 09:07:46 AM »
Science is based on philosophy, not faith.

The details of the scientific method are defined by philosophers. e.g. Popper's principle of falsifiability. Popper was a philosopher.

Science is based on logic. Logic is a branch of philosophy.

Science cannot address the most important existential questions in life, such as how a person should behave. That's the province of ethics - a branch of philosophy.


And does our philosophy not require faith ?  If you make a philosophical claim and you believe it true do you not have faith in your assertion ?

Any philosophical claim requires faith if we actually believe that a claim is true.

Well jump out of a window and see what happens?When we find out things by scientific methods they get tested and tested and we know that they accurately describe what they are supposed to describe.

Look, Newton's Laws of Gravity have been modified a bit but for space flights to be worked out - even landing on Mars, Newton's laws are all we need. It's not faith, it's knowing it works.

Where do you see the faith needed to use Newton's Laws of Gravity?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #167 on: January 06, 2013, 09:42:53 AM »
Science is based on philosophy, not faith.

The details of the scientific method are defined by philosophers. e.g. Popper's principle of falsifiability. Popper was a philosopher.

Science is based on logic. Logic is a branch of philosophy.

Science cannot address the most important existential questions in life, such as how a person should behave. That's the province of ethics - a branch of philosophy.


And does our philosophy not require faith ?  If you make a philosophical claim and you believe it true do you not have faith in your assertion ?

Any philosophical claim requires faith if we actually believe that a claim is true.

Well jump out of a window and see what happens?When we find out things by scientific methods they get tested and tested and we know that they accurately describe what they are supposed to describe.

Look, Newton's Laws of Gravity have been modified a bit but for space flights to be worked out - even landing on Mars, Newton's laws are all we need. It's not faith, it's knowing it works.

Where do you see the faith needed to use Newton's Laws of Gravity?

Wheels,

Gnu differentiated between philosophy and science.  I think you are chiefly talking about science.  My message was about philosophy.  Gnu gave ethics as an example of philosophy which is not science, and he stated that science was a subset of philosophy which I agree with.  I then commented on faith in philosophy eg ethics (rather than science).

But your questions are still valid however because my OP states that science requires faith so I'd better answer you :-).

I could easily dream jumping out of a window and falling and being injured.  Should I then assume that it is real ?  That is the situation we are in when we choose the physical paradigm.  Should I assume that the dream is real ?  Now, note that science does not tell us whether or not sense perception is real.  Science assumes sense perception (observation) is real and then runs with it.  The assumptions of science (eg observation by way of sense perception) cannot be verified by science.  These assumptions require choice, belief and faith.


Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #168 on: January 06, 2013, 10:06:18 AM »

I could easily dream jumping out of a window and falling and being injured.  Should I then assume that it is real ?  That is the situation we are in when we choose the physical paradigm.  Should I assume that the dream is real ?  Now, note that science does not tell us whether or not sense perception is real.  Science assumes sense perception (observation) is real and then runs with it.  The assumptions of science (eg observation by way of sense perception) cannot be verified by science.  These assumptions require choice, belief and faith.

Ok, then I might dreaming while typing this, I agree. I might be... The thing is, most humans are well aware of being awake or being asleep. We are also well aware of the effects of the various laws that affect us and so don't, naturally, think of jumping out of windows. Yes, this is indeed what you call a 'physical paradigm.

The problems with this is, though, that you have not come up with a  single shred of evidence so suggest your alternative paradigm might be the correct one. The so-called 'physical paradigm seems to have been quite successful in advancing all sorts of knowledge and we have, after all, been doing this for some centuries now. However, now is your time - your opportunity - to get down to things and state simply and clearly, in your own words, why we should even consider your alternative hypothesis. Is there anything around to suggest that our present way of looking at things is faulty?

Frankly, I'm tired of this discussion because you have not come up with anything of your own to convince us - you have juts typed links to videos etc to a guy who is more interested in selling books and tapes than anything else. Now come on - let's have you won views on your won words.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #169 on: January 06, 2013, 10:13:40 AM »

Wheels,

Gnu differentiated between philosophy and science.  I think you are chiefly talking about science.  My message was about philosophy.  Gnu gave ethics as an example of philosophy which is not science, and he stated that science was a subset of philosophy which I agree with.  I then commented on faith in philosophy eg ethics (rather than science).

But your questions are still valid however because my OP states that science requires faith so I'd better answer you :-).

I could easily dream jumping out of a window and falling and being injured.  Should I then assume that it is real ?  That is the situation we are in when we choose the physical paradigm.  Should I assume that the dream is real ?  Now, note that science does not tell us whether or not sense perception is real.  Science assumes sense perception (observation) is real and then runs with it.  The assumptions of science (eg observation by way of sense perception) cannot be verified by science.  These assumptions require choice, belief and faith.

Dominic, you are being deliberately obtuse. We have had several hundred years of the modern scientific method. It has produced UNPARALLELED results. More technology and advancement has been achieved during that time than all of the rest of human history combined. If the assumptions of science were utterly false, that would mean that during this time period, every discovery, every advancement, every inch of progress was a completely random accident. The fact is that science can explain to a reasonable degree how our senses have evolved specifically to perceive the world we live in, and how our brains organize this information, and process it, and give us an idea of what is out there. You are acting as if we are still utterly ignorant of everything. It's like a child who has lost an argument or appeal to their parent for some privilege, but keeps on saying, "Well, what if I [fill in the blank]? It really seems like you don't know when you have lost an argument.

And lets scrutinize your paradigm, the spiritual one, since you seemed to have missed me asking these questions before. What are its assumptions? What are its rules? What is it at all? What do we do with it? What has it ever done for us? How do we recognize it? What does it explain? Why aren't you using it to communicate with us?

I'm sorry, but the fact that you HAVE to use the physical paradigm to even be capable of discussing the spiritual paradigm demonstrates that you accept the assumptions of science too, because you know that they work, yet you can't just even admit it. You just hide behind pseudo metaphysical discussion, without having yet contributed a single meaningful thing. At least SHIN KAIRI had enough honesty that he would seriously consider converting if his predictions for 2020, I think , were not correct. You are already showing your hypothesis to be false by rejecting it in favor of ours on a daily basis. Unless you spend all of your days in the Jedi Temple seeking to be One with the Force, you are not taking your own model seriously at all.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #170 on: January 06, 2013, 10:24:35 AM »
PS:  I'm not denying the practical usefulness of science.  Science is an excellent tool for use within what we call physical reality.

I am claiming that science and physical reality require faith from start to finish.  And I am also claiming that physical reality is a subset of consciousness.  Non scientific questions and assertions like ethics (and the rest of philosophy) are thus addressed by consciousness but not by science.  Again, faith is required for every philosophical belief.

There is in fact one philosophical belief that does not require faith.  I mentioned it earler in the thread.  The claim is 'I am' or 'I exist' or 'consciousness exists'.  These are 3 different ways of making the same claim. 


Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #171 on: January 06, 2013, 10:33:53 AM »
kb,

The difference between the two paradigms is whether consciousness is a subset of the physical world or the other way around.  Both paradigms acknowledge and use the physical world.

P1 - The nature of reality is matter.  Consciousness (if it exists at all) somehow emerges from matter.

P2 - The nature of reality is consciousness.  One manifestation (subset) of consciousness is what we call the physical world (of matter, space and time).


Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +657/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #172 on: January 06, 2013, 10:38:52 AM »
Hi chrisinmd

then who created the chemicals?

your question is leading.  It has the answer built in.  By asking "who" and not "how", you have included the assumption that it was some person who did it.   And that may not make any sense at all.  Just because words can be placed side by side does not mean they form a coherent or sensible idea.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science is entirely based on faith
« Reply #173 on: January 06, 2013, 10:41:12 AM »
kb,

The difference between the two paradigms is whether consciousness is a subset of the physical world or the other way around.  Both paradigms acknowledge and use the physical world.

P1 - The nature of reality is matter.  Consciousness (if it exists at all) somehow emerges from matter.

P2 - The nature of reality is consciousness.  One manifestation (subset) of consciousness is what we call the physical world (of matter, space and time).

Right, what is your evidence for P2 that you are proposing?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)