Religious beliefs/Former Frodo and Sam thread

[Finmandos12]

Calm down afro, stop putting words in my mouth. The canaanites were not innocent. I am not a theologian, but what I believe is that their time to repent was past. God had warned the Canaanites to repent, and they did not. He was using the Israelites to punish them. It says somewhere that the sins of a few affect many. Take, for example, the Jew's captivity in Babylon. Because many (but not all) of their kings had been evil, they were deported to Babylon. That's not fair. But God will not hold back his punishment all the time.

[afro-elf]

One problem that occurs with writing is that it is quite inadequte it reveling the emotionanal state of the writer and reader.

I have really never been angry with anyone here


my question is WHERE did i put words in your mouth?


what happened to the loving merciful god?

what kind of supposedly loving, forgiving, merciful, god
would be so low and barbaric?


what happened to thou shall not kill?


why is this lowerer than even human standards?

[afro-elf]

My friend I'm almsot ready.

Just trying to streamline

see ya soon

[Darth Tater]

Don't go off topic or I will be forced to close this thread

[afro-elf]

if that message was for me

i told mathron earlier in the thread that i needed some time to answer his challenge

i was just letting him know i'm almost ready

[afro-elf]

thanks for the joy of a good mental workout

I admit that reason is a feeble flame a flickering torch yet it is the only light extinguish that an naught else remains

Finally a reply

You state that
Hence, faith or science are just as fallible.

The adv just here means equal to. Religion and pseudo science

ARE NOT equally fallible. They may have similar

IF they were JUST as fallible why don’t people jump off of building just because it’s a theory. IF its JUST as fallible it mean they would have the same FAILURE RATE

you state

I think that, because of this, there is no reason not to choose religion over science, or vice versa. They are all viable possibilities.

I am adding pseudo science to religion here they are NOT equally viable

you state
The tenent of faith is that it does not require proof. Obviously faith can not be held as evidence, simply a personal choice.

Do you think that just because something is personal choice that frees them from critical thought as to WHY they accept something

This leads to gullibility of the worse kind. People have reason s for believing but are they good reasons.



I’ll try to answer you below

First of all I think that we need to clarify difference between theoretical problems and pragmatic problems

Often these problems go hand in hand
Often they are on the same page
Often they are not even in the same ballpark

You cite the SO CALLED problem of induction

It is a problem for the field logic not NECESSARILY one for science

(formal) Logic can be seen as set of rules a theoretical framework. A lot of it is theory and not pragmatic. ( though it CAN be applied to the “real” word)

However it has problems that don’t, such as zeno’s paradoxes and the problem of the liar

Zeno logically “PROVED” that there is not such thing is motion

That is a logical problem NOT a pragmatic problem

Nevertheless, there are some instances where logic can give conclusive proof that has more utility. Because of the logical precept ex nihilo nihil fit (Latin for “from nothing, nothing is produced”), it is impossible for nothingness to cause something. Thus, anything that comes into being must have a cause for its existence. This fact is very useful because it supports a fundamental law of science called the law of cause-and-effect (the theory that no effect can be produced without something to cause it). Sadly, not very many helpful theories can be thoroughly proved by logic

Though we speak of scientific theories science is at its heart a pragmatic endeavor
Its goal it to solve problems

Now people will say that induction can not predict the future but it has.
Science makes accurate predictions all the time often years in advance. It makes predictions about the past that can be verified by evidence
Now no one is saying that induction is perfect
BUT it is reliable HOWEVER do not construe reliable with infallible or perfect OR everstatic
In science when we mention the word fact it means only confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provision consent

Also if you insist on induction science is not a ONE induction pony. It is based on a consilence of multiple induction. It is POSSIBLE that it Has ALL been a coincidence but….

Feelings are not facts, emotions are nor evidence
how does the invisible intangible eternally elusive differ from the imaginary

IF they were JUST as fallible why doesn’t faith or pseudo science DO anything

If people really believed in their faith why do they cry at funerals or go to doctors

IF god where real he would exist independent of my subjectivity

we realize that the acceptance by science of a law or of a theory is tentative only; which is to say that all laws and theories are conjectures, or tentative hypotheses and that we may reject a law or theory on the basis of new evidence, without necessarily discarding the old evidence which originally led us to accept it. (But the widespread belief in induction shows that the far-reaching implications of this view are rarely seen.)

I disagree that induction is a fact and in any case needed. The belief that we use induction is simply a mistake.
What we do use is a method of trial and the examination of error; however misleadingly this method may look like induction, its logical structure, if we examine it closely, totally differs from that of induction. Moreover, it is a method which does not give rise to any of the difficulties connected with the problem of induction.
The first is commonsense realism; this is the view that there is a real world, with real people, animals and plants, cars and stars in it. I think that this view is true and immensely important, and I believe that no valid criticism of it has ever been proposed.

. For since it is possible for some conjectures to be preferable to others, it is also possible for our conjectural knowledge to improve, and to grow.
We may prefer some competing theories to others on purely rational grounds. It is important that we are clear what the principles of preference or selection are.

In the first place they are governed by the idea of truth. We want, if at all possible, theories which are true, and for this reason we try to eliminate the false ones.
In other words, there is no 'absolute reliance'; but since we have to choose, it will be 'rational' to choose the best tested theory. This will be 'rational' in the most obvious sense of the word known to me: the best tested theory is the one which, in the light of our critical discussion, appears to be the best so far; and I do not know of anything more 'rational' than a well-conducted critical discussion.

. And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: 'How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?'

So my answer to the questions 'How do you know? What is the source or the basis of your assertion? What observations have led you to it?' would be: 'I do not know: my assertion was merely a guess. Never mind the source, or the sources, from which it may spring - there are many possible sources, and I may not be aware of half of them; and origins or pedigrees have in any case little bearing upon truth. But if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can; and if you can design some experimental test which you think might refute my assertion, I shall gladly, and to the best of my powers, help you to refute it.'




. But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.


when science speaks of truth/fact/"proof" it can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent

But there are degrees of proof and faith. The question becomes whether there is reason to follow things of high faith/low proof as much as things of high proof/low faith (like science}


I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

I might word it this way just because you can not prove/disprove anything does not give equal weight to all things

is to differentiate between science and pseudo-science.

If the objective of science lies in solving problems, and it is to the solution of problems that we can turn to find rationality in the way scientists work. A scientific decision will be rational if it is progressive, choosing the theory with the maximum benefits (problem-solving efficacy) and the minimum number of problems and anomalies.


We alone can be wracked with doubt, and we alone have been provoked by that epistemic itch to seek a remedy: better truth-seeking methods. Wanting to keep better track of our food supplies, our territories, our families, our enemies, we discovered the benefits of talking it over with others, asking questions, passing on lore. We invented culture. Then we invented measuring, and arithmetic, and maps, and writing. These communicative and recording innovations come with a built-in ideal: truth. The point of asking questions is to find true answers; the point of measuring is to measure accurately; the point of making maps is to find your way to your destination. There may be an Island of the Colour-blind (allowing Oliver Sacks his usual large dose of poetic license), but no Island of the People Who Do Not Recognize Their Own Children. The Land of the Liars could exist only in philosophers' puzzles; there are no traditions of False Calendar Systems for mis-recording the passage of time. In short, the goal of truth goes without saying, in every human culture.



We ought to adopt a more pragmatic approach and think of what we call "truth" as what's useful to believe.
A scientific theory is "empirically adequate" if it gets things right about the observable phenomena in nature. Phenomena are "observable" if they could be observed by appropriately placed beings with sensory abilities similar to those characteristic of human beings.

This is called "inference to the best explanation." The argument for this view is that in everyday life we reason according to the principle of inference to the best explanation, and so we should also reason this way in science.

Pragmatic View an explanation is a body of information that implies that the phenomenon is more likely than its alternatives,


Approximate Truth

The "Success" of Science. This notion means different things to different people, but is generally taken to refer to the increasing ability science gives us to manipulate the world, predict natural phenomena, and build more sophisticated technology

.

[afro-elf]

another question for you math

if they are JUST as fallible/ same success rate

if YOU are seriously wounded would you prefer for me to take you
a doctor and have NO ONE pray for you or to have people ONLY pray for you?

what are the reason for your choice?


is learning possible? is it induction? or trail and elimination of error?
or something else?



thanks

[Mathron]

thanks for the joy of a good mental workout

No problem, glad you enjoyed it.

I admit that reason is a feeble flame a flickering torch yet it is the only light extinguish that an naught else remains

Reason is perfectly acceptable. The issue here is that induction is not logical reasoning, merely practical application for convenience's sake.

Finally a reply
You state that
Hence, faith or science are just as fallible.

The adv just here means equal to. Religion and pseudo science

ARE NOT equally fallible. They may have similar

IF they were JUST as fallible why don’t people jump off of building just because it’s a theory. IF its JUST as fallible it mean they would have the same FAILURE RATE

Not the issue. This is a discussion of origin, not result. Science is infallible because it is based on an incorrect assumption of truth. The reason people don't jump off buildings is because it is more practical not so - an ingrained instinct to believe in the validity of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning *could* be right, it just has not been proven.
And YOU. CAN. NOT. QUOTE. FAILURE. RATE. Doing so shows you do not understand the issue at all - a failure rate is an accumulated log of past instances, so using it to prove your point is using inductive reasoning. As we have already established, you cannot use inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning! To clutch at such things shows a lack of willingness to expand horizons. Ignore past instances - prove that science works without evidence, without rates, without anything based on past empirical gatherings!

you state

"I think that, because of this, there is no reason not to choose religion over science, or vice versa. They are all viable possibilities. "

I am adding pseudo science to religion here they are NOT equally viable

False. In potentiallity, all possibilities are equal. Science utilizes an illogical basis. Simply saying that they are not equal does not make it so.

you state
The tenent of faith is that it does not require proof. Obviously faith can not be held as evidence, simply a personal choice.

Do you think that just because something is personal choice that frees them from critical thought as to WHY they accept something

Yes! Duh. :P Is there some unwritten law that people must think the same way as you, the same manner, the same illogical standards? Of course not! If I want to believe the sky is pink, is someone going to stop me, and tell me that my beliefs are not allowed? It all is a matter of perspective, after all, and personal belief is just that - personal. Certain minds may operate, in fact, on entirely different tracks of logic than humanly the norm.

This leads to gullibility of the worse kind. People have reason s for believing but are they good reasons.

And thus you claim to be God, and to be the only one who can define 'good' reasons? And would regulate people's beliefs? NO! People can believe whatever they want - what you WANT them to believe does NOT come into it.

I’ll try to answer you below

Nevertheless, there are some instances where logic can give conclusive proof that has more utility. Because of the logical precept ex nihilo nihil fit (Latin for “from nothing, nothing is produced”), it is impossible for nothingness to cause something. Thus, anything that comes into being must have a cause for its existence. This fact is very useful because it supports a fundamental law of science called the law of cause-and-effect (the theory that no effect can be produced without something to cause it). Sadly, not very many helpful theories can be thoroughly proved by logic

Assumption: That the precept is valid, and not simply rationally adaptable to the human mind. But continue on...

Though we speak of scientific theories science is at its heart a pragmatic endeavor
Its goal it to solve problems
Now people will say that induction can not predict the future but it has.

Gadzooks! Again, you use temporal evidence as proof! You say it has - lies! You are using induction to prove itself! I've asked you in every post before to not do so - it just doesn't work!

[Mathron]

{snip more using induction to try and prove itself}

In science when we mention the word fact it means only confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provision consent

[/quote]Also if you insist on induction science is not a ONE induction pony. It is based on a consilence of multiple induction. It is POSSIBLE that it Has ALL been a coincidence but….
[/quote]

Hmm. Induction is valid, because we can have *many* inductive facts work? Again... well, don't think I need to repeat myself.

IF they were JUST as fallible why doesn’t faith or pseudo science DO anything
If people really believed in their faith why do they cry at funerals or go to doctors

Hmm. Um... cause, for the first, human emotion responds to loss by a feeling of sadness. By your laws, a chemical reaction. By other laws, they are crying for their own loss and grief, not the lost one. As for doctors, because there is no reason not to seek health? Not all religions claim that God will cure all sicknesses - only the most extremist beliefs....

IF god where real he would exist independent of my subjectivity

Yep. So?

we realize that the acceptance by science of a law or of a theory is tentative only; which is to say that all laws and theories are conjectures, or tentative hypotheses and that we may reject a law or theory on the basis of new evidence, without necessarily discarding the old evidence which originally led us to accept it. (But the widespread belief in induction shows that the far-reaching implications of this view are rarely seen.)

Ahhh, I see. Widespread belief = proof? Heh, please tell me that isn't your argument - by that, you proove most religions as well.

I disagree that induction is a fact and in any case needed. The belief that we use induction is simply a mistake.
What we do use is a method of trial and the examination of error; however misleadingly this method may look like induction, its logical structure, if we examine it closely, totally differs from that of induction. Moreover, it is a method which does not give rise to any of the difficulties connected with the problem of induction.

sigh... trial and error utilizes a evaluation of patterns in the past of various experiments. In other words, uses induction. Induction is basing a hypothesis on how events have behaved in the past. You can not tell me that trial and error is not induction, unless you are lying.

In the first place they are governed by the idea of truth. We want, if at all possible, theories which are true, and for this reason we try to eliminate the false ones.
In other words, there is no 'absolute reliance'; but since we have to choose, it will be 'rational' to choose the best tested theory. This will be 'rational' in the most obvious sense of the word known to me: the best tested theory is the one which, in the light of our critical discussion, appears to be the best so far; and I do not know of anything more 'rational' than a well-conducted critical discussion.

Anything based on being 'the best tested theory' has been grounded in induction. And, hence, illogical.

And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: 'How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?'

So my answer to the questions 'How do you know? What is the source or the basis of your assertion? What observations have led you to it?' would be: 'I do not know: my assertion was merely a guess. Never mind the source, or the sources, from which it may spring - there are many possible sources, and I may not be aware of half of them; and origins or pedigrees have in any case little bearing upon truth. But if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can; and if you can design some experimental test which you think might refute my assertion, I shall gladly, and to the best of my powers, help you to refute it.'

Interesting idea: All theories are true until proven false...
Ok. God exists. Go again, design a test to refute my assertion.
It doesn't work, really. You can't give an assumption and demand to be proven wrong. That is why we can't accept the countless religions as inherently true - yes, they may be logically consistent, and possible, but possibility is not truth. IF you insist on your method, that is fine, but it proves my point just as well, for science is, then, just as viable as religion.
If you wish to prove me otherwise, show a logical BASIS for science.

But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.

True. My biggest problem with science: Judging at how it has done in the past, most of what we believe is, in all probability, wrong, and 'new' science will be discovered to disprove it in the future. Only human arrogance insists that our beliefs are 'better' than scientific beliefs in the past that were proven wrong.

when science speaks of truth/fact/"proof" it can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent

Sure. Just remember than all inductive reasoning has no amount of confirmation, so doesn't help at all.

But there are degrees of proof and faith. The question becomes whether there is reason to follow things of high faith/low proof as much as things of high proof/low faith (like science}
I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

Tsk. Reliable reeks of induction. Try again.

I might word it this way just because you can not prove/disprove anything does not give equal weight to all things

Not the issue - that is a random side tangent. Ignore it.

is to differentiate between science and pseudo-science.
If the objective of science lies in solving problems, and it is to the solution of problems that we can turn to find rationality in the way scientists work. A scientific decision will be rational if it is progressive, choosing the theory with the maximum benefits (problem-solving efficacy) and the minimum number of problems and anomalies.

Hmm. No, not at all. What it results in doesn't prove rationality - rather, where it came from. If they arrived at the decision through blind luck, is that rational? No. If they arrive there by induction, the same.

We alone can be wracked with doubt, and we alone have been provoked by that epistemic itch to seek a remedy: better truth-seeking methods. Wanting to keep better track of our food supplies, our territories, our families, our enemies, we discovered the benefits of talking it over with others, asking questions, passing on lore. We invented culture. Then we invented measuring, and arithmetic, and maps, and writing. These communicative and recording innovations come with a built-in ideal: truth. The point of asking questions is to find true answers; the point of measuring is to measure accurately; the point of making maps is to find your way to your destination. There may be an Island of the Colour-blind (allowing Oliver Sacks his usual large dose of poetic license), but no Island of the People Who Do Not Recognize Their Own Children. The Land of the Liars could exist only in philosophers' puzzles; there are no traditions of False Calendar Systems for mis-recording the passage of time. In short, the goal of truth goes without saying, in every human culture.

Interesting, but entirely unrelated.

We ought to adopt a more pragmatic approach and think of what we call "truth" as what's useful to believe.
A scientific theory is "empirically adequate" if it gets things right about the observable phenomena in nature. Phenomena are "observable" if they could be observed by appropriately placed beings with sensory abilities similar to those characteristic of human beings.

Empirical evidence and observation both utilize induction. Hence, useless. Try again.

This is called "inference to the best explanation." The argument for this view is that in everyday life we reason according to the principle of inference to the best explanation, and so we should also reason this way in science.

Yes and no. It is practical to do so. But not rational.

Pragmatic View an explanation is a body of information that implies that the phenomenon is more likely than its alternatives,

The pragmaticism used here is, rather, a human instinct, not any possibility law. The human inherent belief in induction.

Approximate Truth

The "Success" of Science. This notion means different things to different people, but is generally taken to refer to the increasing ability science gives us to manipulate the world, predict natural phenomena, and build more sophisticated technology

Success = using past evidence = induction = no.

another question for you math

Please no cheap nicknames...

if they are JUST as fallible/ same success rate

I never claimed they had same success rate. I claimed that to use success rate as a factor is to use induction, and hence flawed.

if YOU are seriously wounded would you prefer for me to take you
a doctor and have NO ONE pray for you or to have people ONLY pray for you?

A doctor, because of my personal choice, pragmatic approach, and natural instinct. So? Does my belief, however illogical, decide the way the universe works?

is learning possible? is it induction? or trail and elimination of error?

The latter two are the same, and that is what learning often is. Depending on type of learning, of course. Again, it is practical, not logical, information - for now.

[Mathron]

My apologies for multiple responses, but had to abide my max limit on message size.

Anyway, my final conclusion: You have completely ignored my question, or misunderstood my point.

What is induction?
It is using past patterns to hypothesize that those patterns will continue in the future.

Why do we believe in it? Because of its success rate, of the fact that it has worked in the past, and so should work in the future.

But this is induction, so we are trying to prove it by proving itself.

Can you, on this issue - not completely unrelated other issues that you keep bringing up, that have no applicable relationship - show that this is not so.

Can you, without using any empirical evidence, or anything based on past proof, show any validity to induction?

Or not?

[afro-elf]

Would i be right here my saying for you it is a LOGICAL problem?

MY point is not the theoretical short comings but application


to wish i would reply again

First of all I think that we need to clarify difference between theoretical problems and pragmatic problems

Often these problems go hand in hand
Often they are on the same page
Often they are not even in the same ballpark

You cite the SO CALLED problem of induction

It is a problem for the field logic not NECESSARILY one for science

(formal) Logic can be seen as set of rules a theoretical framework. A lot of it is theory and not pragmatic. ( though it CAN be applied to the “real” word)

However it has problems that don’t, such as zeno’s paradoxes and the problem of the liar

Zeno logically “PROVED” that there is not such thing is motion

That is a logical problem NOT a pragmatic problem


you state

Reason is perfectly acceptable. The issue here is that induction is not logical reasoning, merely practical application for convenience's sake.

to which i agree

I'm saying that though it may not have a theortically logical basis
does NOT mean it is USELESS


you state

Not the issue. This is a discussion of origin, not result

I am discussing result, that is my reason for these post

i think that the problem goes deeper than logic it is a problem for epistemology

both of these endeavors epistemology and theoretical logic have"OFTEN" inherent problems in real world application


you state

Science is infallible because it is based on an incorrect assumption of truth

who said that it was infallible?

science works more along the lines of what we know NOW is blah blah blah

i do not think any competent sciencist would say otherwise


you state

Ignore past instances - prove that science works without evidence, without rates, without anything based on past empirical gatherings!

that is a not a pragmatic problem that is a theoretical one

an ingrained instinct to believe in the validity of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning *could* be right, it just has not been proven.

I'm NOT saying that inductive reason is infallible only that it is a neccessary component of life

i make mistakes with induction reasoning
however i m usaully correct

JUST because it does not have theoretical perfection does not mean it is not useful.

. In potentiallity, all possibilities are equal. Science utilizes an illogical basis. Simply saying that they are not equal does not make it so

saying that all things are possibily possibile does not make them so

science is based on practical reasoning not of theoretical logic
the stuff of scienitic theory is to provide answers to problems to DO things

you state
The tenent of faith is that it does not require proof. Obviously faith can not be held as evidence, simply a personal choice.

Do you think that just because something is personal choice that frees them from critical thought as to WHY they accept something
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





[

Yes! Duh. :P Is there some unwritten law that people must think the same way as you, the same manner, the same illogical standards? Of course not! If I want to believe the sky is pink, is someone going to stop me, and tell me that my beliefs are not allowed? It all is a matter of perspective, after all, and personal belief is just that - personal. Certain minds may operate, in fact, on entirely different tracks of logic than humanly the norm.

AH DUH... when these people have power that affect the lives of people. i sure hope to hell that they have good reasons for doing so.

And thus you claim to be God, and to be the only one who can define 'good' reasons? And would regulate people's beliefs? NO! People can believe whatever they want - what you WANT them to believe does NOT come into it.

i restate

AH DUH... when these people have power that affect the lives of many people. i sure hope to hell that they have good reasons for doing so

there can be pretty bad reasons for doing things


reporter to billy bob hick killer
"why did you kill everybody in the house?"

billy bob
"cause they was home"

you make a statement about personal beliefs being personal
however this beliefs are acted upon and this action can affect people

take the kansas board of eduaction for example

Gadzooks! Again, you use temporal evidence as proof

we happen to exist in time. that it the only evidence that gets stuff done. is it perfect no. its useful yes.

arguing possibly of future failure does not MAKE it pramatically usless to use induction
it is suffice to know that this may change
that is just plain prudence one level
yet it would be utterly absurd to say that since it does not have a theoretically flawless basis lets chuck the system

IF they were JUST as fallible why doesn’t faith or pseudo science DO anything

what PRACTICAL reasons are there for be to believe in pseudo science, religion, new age, mysticism

why are they full of apolgetics and empty of results

not the theoretical reasons for their failure but practical

Anything based on being 'the best tested theory' has been grounded in induction. And, hence, illogical.

BUT reasonably accectable( pragmatic)

Interesting idea: All theories are true until proven false...

the point is trying to find things that are of practical import by elimanating less practical

here practical does not imply easy

But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.

True. My biggest problem with science: Judging at how it has done in the past, most of what we believe is, in all probability, wrong, and 'new' science will be discovered to disprove it in the future. Only human arrogance insists that our beliefs are 'better' than scientific beliefs in the past that were proven wrong.

what are you basis the state on that most of what we believe (in science i presume) is wrong and will be replace by new science...
.
Scientists tend to respond to this by simply pointing out that science is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. New theories improve upon previous theories, rather than turning them completely upside down. For example, Einstein's theories of relativity did not "overturn" Newtonian physics, which are still taught in school and widely used today. They demonstrated superior accuracy, but only in very anomalous conditions. In fact, the predictions of Einsteinian and Newtonian physics are so close in the vast majority of situations that observational evidence for Einstein's theories did not appear until several decades after he had first proposed it, due to limitations in the accuracy of measurement methods at the time.

it is possible for a theory to be wrong even though science teachers still teach it in schools and engineers still apply it when designing technologies (eg- Newtonian physics). How? It's a simple matter of degrees: a theory which is very slightly inaccurate is still better than a theory which is grossly inaccurate. In some cases, a slightly less accurate theory may even be preferable, if it is easier to apply and the difference in accuracy is deemed negligible.

A new and improved scientific theory will have identical predictions to the old, or "conventional" theory in most situations. Why? Because the old theory would never have been accepted in the first place if its predictions weren't close to measurement. Since those measurements are still valid, the new theory must account for them too.

when science speaks of truth/fact/"proof" it can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent

Sure. Just remember than all inductive reasoning has no amount of confirmation, so doesn't help at all.

no amount of future confirmation

but that is a theoretical problem not a pragmatic one

science makes a lot predictions are world is basically run of this

as mentioned earlier with zeno's logical problems do not have to a correspondence in practical application

!@@##$ zeno there IS motion. if it aint logically feasible that's too bad cause i move

But there are degrees of proof and faith. The question becomes whether there is reason to follow things of high faith/low proof as much as things of high proof/low faith (like science}
I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

.

Tsk. Reliable reeks of induction. Try again.

Oops I forgot I gotta surrender utility for theory.

i guess then that nothing is certain except uncertainty


here is a quote

You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers
which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and
different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not
absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything
about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here... I don't
have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being
lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really
is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me."
[Richard P. Feynman, "Genius, the life and science"]

however it does not prevent me from seeking practical knowlege

[afro-elf]

cont...

We alone can be wracked with doubt, and we alone have been provoked by that epistemic itch to seek a remedy: better truth-seeking methods. Wanting to keep better track of our food supplies, our territories, our families, our enemies, we discovered the benefits of talking it over with others, asking questions, passing on lore. We invented culture. Then we invented measuring, and arithmetic, and maps, and writing. These communicative and recording innovations come with a built-in ideal: truth. The point of asking questions is to find true answers; the point of measuring is to measure accurately; the point of making maps is to find your way to your destination. There may be an Island of the Colour-blind (allowing Oliver Sacks his usual large dose of poetic license), but no Island of the People Who Do Not Recognize Their Own Children. The Land of the Liars could exist only in philosophers' puzzles; there are no traditions of False Calendar Systems for mis-recording the passage of time. In short, the goal of truth goes without saying, in every human culture.

Interesting, but entirely unrelated.

No it IS related because it shows the pragmatic use of science

We ought to adopt a more pragmatic approach and think of what we call "truth" as what's useful to believe.

A scientific theory is "empirically adequate" if it gets things right about the observable phenomena in nature. Phenomena are "observable" if they could be observed by appropriately placed beings with sensory abilities similar to those characteristic of human beings.

Empirical evidence and observation both utilize induction. Hence, useless. Try again

its sure has some utilitary whoop !@# though



This is called "inference to the best explanation." The argument for this view is that in everyday life we reason according to the principle of inference to the best explanation, and so we should also reason this way in science

Yes and no. It is practical to do so. But not rational.

yeah, i'm defending the that view

The "Success" of Science. This notion means different things to different people, but is generally taken to refer to the increasing ability science gives us to manipulate the world, predict natural phenomena, and build more sophisticated technology

Success = using past evidence = induction = no.

success=this stuff works=practical
induction= a logical problem not a pragmatic one

[afro-elf]

Anyway, my final conclusion: You have completely ignored my question, or misunderstood my point.

I will accept the blame for the misunderstanding


it has been awhile since I had to really think of my PRIMARY reasons to I jumped into battle unprepared



I have not been trying to defend induction on theorectically logical reasons

but pragmatic ones

with that said science IS the most successful pragmatic endevor ever

i believe i have answered your questions about belief
concerning WHY people should have good reasons for belief, this does not mean they should act in same manner but have good reasons for doing so and why the burden of proof rest upon those who make extraordinary claims

they may have been implicitly stated if you need clarity i'll glady do so



thanks for the challenge and sorry for the misunderstanding

[afro-elf]

my non sequitor thingy

IF they were JUST as fallible why doesn’t faith or pseudo science DO anything
If people really believed in their faith why do they cry at funerals or go to doctors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmm. Um... cause, for the first, human emotion responds to loss by a feeling of sadness. By your laws, a chemical reaction. By other laws, they are crying for their own loss and grief, not the lost one.

one of their "laws" state the person is going to a MUCH better place they should be happy

unless at those times they innately realize it may all be garbage
and have a real reason to be sad

i limited 1st response to funeral when is should have been mentioned as berevment

As for doctors, because there is no reason not to seek health? Not all religions claim that God will cure all sicknesses - only the most extremist beliefs....

BUT western theology proports god as being beneficent AND all powerful and intercative and this is COMMON, NOT extremist

i am sure you can see the impliction here

[afro-elf]

Reason is perfectly acceptable. The issue here is that induction is not logical reasoning, merely practical application for convenience's sake.

QUOTE]Sure. Just remember than all inductive reasoning has no amount of confirmation, so doesn't help at all. [/QUOTE


however IF i judged your statement correctly, it seems to me that you are state that since science is weak in a logical proof that is is useless


illogical DOES NOT equal irrational

logic is a THEORETICAL system: there are many different kinds of logic, aristotelian,boolean,fregean, russellian etc

rational may be seen as good reasoning

as i have stated before

logic as its problems

the easiest is zeno'e paradoxes

as i said earlier to hell with his logical proof

there is motion

the world still goes on

do we give up the ship because of this?


"If your faith is opposed to experience, to human learning and investigation, it is not worth the breath used in giving it expression."

ALL we have IS experience. an no matter what logical proof there is nothing is going to change it. is it perfect no but it and reason are the few tools we have to navigate life

just because induction in logically fallible does that make ALL opinions equal?

just because i use induction to go home every night and that is logically fallible does that mean that i have GOOD REASONS to accept that angels are guarding my path or demons make bad things happen







"

Yes! Duh. :P Is there some unwritten law that people must think the same way as you, the same manner, the same illogical standards? Of course not! If I want to believe the sky is pink, is someone going to stop me, and tell me that my beliefs are not allowed? It all is a matter of perspective, after all, and personal belief is just that - personal. Certain minds may operate, in fact, on entirely different tracks of logic than humanly the norm.

i restate

AH DUH... when these people have power that affect the lives of many people. i sure hope to hell that they have good reasons for doing so

there can be pretty bad reasons for doing things


reporter to billy bob hick killer
"why did you kill everybody in the house?"

billy bob
"cause they was home"

you make a statement about personal beliefs being personal
however this beliefs are acted upon and this action can affect people

If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Hamlet was Danish because I believe that Hamlet was a character in a play by Shaw and that some Danes are Shavian characters, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth.


one is a good reason one is not

in relation to what is said earlier

As for doctors, because there is no reason not to seek health? Not all religions claim that God will cure all sicknesses - only the most extremist beliefs....

BUT western theology proports god as being beneficent AND all powerful and intercative and this is COMMON, NOT extremist

i am sure you can see the impliction here
If God exists, forget trying to cure cancer, ease pain, or whatever! It's in his hands. Oh, sure, he might bless us or think better of us if we help out, but it is still his property, his responsibility, his creation, his choice, etc...etc...

If God doesn't exist, let's try to cure cancer and ease pain. Better yet, let's try and find what grounds people can unite upon...namely the fact that they live mortal lives of flesh and blood...and not some supernatural opinion that can be shared only in select crowds.


take the kansas board of eduaction for example


. The will to believe even contrary to demonstrative evidence, credo quia absurdum, is often lauded as a religious virtue."


In India it was the religious duty of the widow to be burned on the funeral pyre of her late husband.

the the various genocides throught history


to even mundane choices

wanting to have people have good reasons for their action does not mean i want them all to choose my choice but have good reasons for doing so


bad reasons can lead to bad results more often than good reason can lead to bad choices

[Mathron]

Alas, I can't continue this debate anymore. You continue to ignore the argument entirely. You cite, again, that you are debating results, when I have logically proven that results mean nothing - and you can give no response to this. In the end, this shows that, speaking on a purely logical basis, you have just as much grounds for your reasoning as any follower of religion. ~grin~
The issue here is that you CAN'T adequately defend induction, and can only clutch at the same instinctive beliefs - even while deriding their beliefs and chastising them for believing in things without a logical basis. People believe blindly, and will refuse to admit even in the phase of evidence - whether they believe in science or religion. I am certainly playing devil's advocate here, yet I really have not seen any real defense from you - just drawing in more and more issues entirely unrelated, as well as trying to use induction to support its own validity.
But, as I wholeheartedly believe, you should choose your belief according to your own measures. So feel free to continue believing in induction and science. As for me, I think this debate must end - for one thing, this discussion has gotten far too long, and we are the only ones remaining debating it.

[afro-elf]

You continue to ignore the argument entirely. You cite, again, that you are debating results, when I have logically proven

and I have shown at least one example ( zeno's paradoxes)
that show a logical proof does not necessarily correspond to "reality" ( let us please not go deeper into the meaning of reality)


now if i have shown that a logical proof (theory)does not necesarily affect the was things WORK why do you SEEM to completely rely on it


JUST because it has a logical weakness does not mean it has a rational weakness

I do not believe you responded to that at all

I AGREE WITH YOU IT HAS A LOGICAL WEAKNESS BUT NOT A RATIONAL WEAKNESS

it seems you are entreached in logical theory

fine

but it has it shortcomings
Do you deny this yes or no?

I however do admit that BOTH have their weakness

aren't you using induction yourself?
what guarantee that someday it may be POSSIBLE ( to use your words) that there may be a way to LOGICALLY prove induction

I really have not seen any real defense from you - just drawing in more and more issues entirely unrelated, as well as trying to use induction to support its own validity.

i do AGREE that my earlier post had some non sequitor material

but you have failed in my opinion to address the logical problems in my last posts.

namely logic as its own problems though while useful not perfect
just like rational thought

but IF you are suggesting to deny all experience on a theoretical problem well....

anyway i think that BOTH sides have a weakness and i do not believe you have addressed this( the logic end of it) in my latter post

what does that leave us

SOL

thanks for the riff

[afro-elf]

INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING IS FLAWED

you asked me to give some deductive proof BUT that is flawed too.

Here again is a confusion that can be traced to the fact that principles are imaginary: Because the imagination is so powerful, it is quite possible to have three seemingly incompatible sets of principles, each of which is internally consistent. This realization requires us to reconsider the supposed infallibility of logical deduction in science

( this concerns Euclid, Lobachevsky, and Riemann and math problem which I can post if you wish)

So although deductive inference may indeed yield conclusions that must be correct if the premises are correct, the choice of those premises clearly depends on fallible human judgment.

Suddenly we are no longer able to build an unshakable fortress of logic in the realm of imaginary ideal forms that can be simply identified with aspects of the actual world. Whether a particular formal model is appropriate or inappropriate depends as much upon the criteria for appropriateness, and our ability to determine if they have been met, as it does on the various details of the physical situation. We are in the same position when we attempt to decide if a particular scientific theory is applicable to a particular situation or to a particular kind of situation. This human decision -- whether the principle is appropriate as a model of the relevant aspects of the situation -- can never be removed from the equation.

we might say that if what you mean by 'logical deduction' is starting from premises or assumptions that are certainly true, and proceeding by logical steps that are CERTAINLY appropriate, to reach conclusions that are CERTAINLY true -- which is what many people do mean by the term -- then we can agree that deduction has no role in the scientific study of the natural world.

Deduction can't create new information
So once again

SOL

[afro-elf]

i do not think that the problem of induction negates science

either more than zeno has LOGICALLY negated motion

it just shows it aint perfect

[Finmandos12]

I agree Mathron this arguement went on a tangent. Oh well, it was interesting for a while.