Faith vs science

More
21 Feb 2019 19:24 #334711 by Manu
Replied by Manu on topic Faith vs science

Arisaig wrote: Well, yeah. What did I say? 'People agreeing'. Of course, by this, I mean intelligent people capable of rational thought, not drones. When people say fire is hot, it took a couple people touching it to find out the hard way and end up with medium rare hands. It took rational people to observe and figure it out all while keeping their palms... well, very rare.



“Remember, rewards come in action, not in discussion.” Tony Robbins
Attachments:
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Arisaig

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Feb 2019 19:42 - 21 Feb 2019 19:44 #334717 by Kyrin Wyldstar
Replied by Kyrin Wyldstar on topic Faith vs science

Manu wrote:
The whole premise of the article is to show that our current understanding of science rests upon assumptions that are not completely testable, and thus, a leap of "faith".



I would agree with this. This is why science does not make absolute truth claims. In fact not only science but all of reality is based on specific presuppositions. This means we can never make any claims of absolute truth in either science or faith. The difference is Faith still tries to do this where science does not. So sure you can make a claim that you believe in god but its not scientific because it cant be falsified. Scientists are not actually in the business of proving things they believe, they are in the business of skeptical analysis through falsification. And when only one hypothesis cant be falsified that is the one called a conditionally accurate expression of reality.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 21 Feb 2019 19:44 by Kyrin Wyldstar.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Manu, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Feb 2019 19:53 - 21 Feb 2019 19:54 #334718 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic Faith vs science
So first a note on that Paul Davies quote:
I had already said that we need to separate what scientists believe from scientific beliefs (to use controversial jargon on purpose, if I may). It is entirely uninteresting to me whether Prof. Davies thinks that the "laws of the universe" is a meaningful thing to speak about, or separate from the universe, or whence they came. A scientific model is a description we created to make predictions, because our lives are safer and more pleasant if we have an idea of what the future holds that is not entirely inaccurate. The computer I'm typing this message on works as it does because one field of physics everyone keeps telling me "nobody really understands" is understood so well that we have been basing technology on it for something like half a century.
Whether our models of how things work correspond to any kind of "laws of the universe" that are in any sense at all "out there, governing the universe", while arguably an interesting question, is definitely not a scientific one. No prediction can be generated from answering it in either the affirmative or the negative, so no test can be performed to find out one way or the other, because at the end of the day we are stuck with the observations we make and the models we construct to predict them. We have no means of comparing that to any kind of "reality" or "truth", because we do not have access to any such thing. Just because an argument is made by a scientist does not mean that it is a scientific argument.
Now, on to quotes from people who are actually here:


ZealotX wrote: Faith and Science do absolutely go hand in hand.

Faith is like seeing something in the dark. It might be there. It might not be there. It might be your imagination.

So what do you do?

You use your five sense to detect what that something is so you can wrap your mind around it; or "know it"

knowing is the basis of gnosis which is science.

What you really want in science is an explanation of the experience that allows to make predictions about future trials with known and finite margins of error. "What that something is" is a philosophical question. A scientific understanding is reached as soon as and no sooner than a model with predictive power is constructed, and the quality of the understanding is measured by how accurate the model predicts observations weighted agains the cost to compute those predictions.


So faith creates the quest and gives us new things to discover. Not knowing something isn't enough. There has to be motive to investigate or to discover. And that comes from imagining possibilities. Science fiction is a type of "faith". Sorry but religions do not get to have sole ownership of this word. In science fiction people imagine what the future might be like. Meanwhile science tries to catch up to that future and surpass it.

Faith is a complete trust. No amount of discovery is necessary or sufficient to produce faith. It is, by definition, unreasonable. It is also the end of curiosity and thus discovery, because a statement taken on faith is a statement taken on unreason, and thus no reason can actually move one to improve upon it, only caprice can.
Science fiction is not science. It is art. Science has no ambitions to "catch up to" or to "surpass" it, because science has real life to account for and deal with. Most science fiction is nonsense, and considering what real discoveries we made since its writing, not even all that imaginative nonsense at that. Don't get me wrong, I do love me some sci-fi, but it has precious little to do with science and shouldn't be conflated with it, if that's avoidable.
Moving on...


Arisaig wrote: Yes, yes you can [peer review an opinion]. All things start as opinions. It just takes enough people agreeing to make it fact (ie. Peer Review), and enough tests without fail proving it correct to make it reality.

I don't know how this is in your field of expertise, but in mine you get something like two or three reviewers before your paper is published. That's if it gets past the journal's editor, and in some cases they'll call in one or two more reviewers before making a decision to publish or to not publish after the reviewers have stated their opinion after you responded to their criticisms and edited the paper as necessary in your opinion. Peer review is a means to decide what has merit and import enough to be shared with the community, not a means to make facts out of opinions, at least not in my field. And surveying something like five experts when there is something like a thousand or so post-doc researchers is far from seeking any kind of consensus or even "enough people agreeing".

Last edit: 21 Feb 2019 19:54 by Gisteron.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Loudzoo, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Feb 2019 00:34 #334727 by Kobos
Replied by Kobos on topic Faith vs science
So, I have apparently been killing threads with questions :P So, I am going to ask some more.

I have seen hints of this word through out this whole discussion but I don't think I saw the actual word that, IMHO is the bridge between our 2 subjects here

CREATIVITY

Does this aspect of the human experience often encompass both science and faith? Is this where the 2 meet and yet also separate in their perspective practices?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Get some fame, people change, wanna live they life high
Same song can't go wrong, if I play the nice guy
(Claim the fame must have changed, now that we became strong)
I remain still the same (why Tu'?), cause it's the same song
_Digital Underground
TM-JLSpinner Training, Brother-Nakis

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Feb 2019 00:38 - 22 Feb 2019 09:15 #334728 by Kyrin Wyldstar
Replied by Kyrin Wyldstar on topic Faith vs science
You have misunderstood the difference between facts and Hypothesis is these comments Arisaig. I know you will not take this in the manner in which it is meant but im posting this here in the hopes it may help you

This message contains confidential information


* Interim Mod Action; Please don't go to Journals, dig stuff up and bring them over to carry on a discussion, especially when the person has indicated they were posting it out of this discussion.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 22 Feb 2019 09:15 by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Feb 2019 00:53 #334729 by Loudzoo
Replied by Loudzoo on topic Faith vs science
Non sequiturs are fun but they don’t really contribute to mutually beneficial discussion :P

Gisteron prompts a very interesting question though, intentionally or otherwise: what methods should we use to satisfactorily answer questions that aren’t ‘scientific’? E.g.

“Whether our models of how things work correspond to any kind of "laws of the universe" that are in any sense at all "out there, governing the universe", while arguably an interesting question, is definitely not a scientific one”

The scientific method is immensely powerful but somewhat narrow. It can’t currently cope with chaotic, non-linear systems very well (most of reality!) and it has been terrible at delivering an existentially satisfying paradigm. To name but two failings . . .

Faith is also immensely powerful but also somewhat narrow. It is nigh on impossible to quantify and (to put it politely) is unreliable. It has failed to deliver an existentially satsifying paradigm either.

Guess what? We need both. Until we can stop fielding a rugby team against a football team - we are never going to agree on the rules of the game. As Humans we need both Science and Faith - together, integrated - not fighting petty semantic battles against each other!

Sermon over (once Einstein has spoken):
“science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Anyone willing to argue against Einstein on this?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Proteus, Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Feb 2019 01:03 #334730 by ren
Replied by ren on topic Faith vs science

When people say fire is hot


Fire is not hot.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Loudzoo, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Feb 2019 01:04 - 22 Feb 2019 01:05 #334731 by Kobos
Replied by Kobos on topic Faith vs science

ren wrote:

When people say fire is hot


Fire is not hot.


It is the material oxidizing and gases surrounding it that are hot............also, hot has varying degrees :)

Get some fame, people change, wanna live they life high
Same song can't go wrong, if I play the nice guy
(Claim the fame must have changed, now that we became strong)
I remain still the same (why Tu'?), cause it's the same song
_Digital Underground
TM-JLSpinner Training, Brother-Nakis
Last edit: 22 Feb 2019 01:05 by Kobos.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Feb 2019 02:24 #334732 by Manu
Replied by Manu on topic Faith vs science

Loudzoo wrote: Non sequiturs are fun but they don’t really contribute to mutually beneficial discussion :P

Gisteron prompts a very interesting question though, intentionally or otherwise: what methods should we use to satisfactorily answer questions that aren’t ‘scientific’? E.g.

“Whether our models of how things work correspond to any kind of "laws of the universe" that are in any sense at all "out there, governing the universe", while arguably an interesting question, is definitely not a scientific one”

The scientific method is immensely powerful but somewhat narrow. It can’t currently cope with chaotic, non-linear systems very well (most of reality!) and it has been terrible at delivering an existentially satisfying paradigm. To name but two failings . . .

Faith is also immensely powerful but also somewhat narrow. It is nigh on impossible to quantify and (to put it politely) is unreliable. It has failed to deliver an existentially satsifying paradigm either.

Guess what? We need both. Until we can stop fielding a rugby team against a football team - we are never going to agree on the rules of the game. As Humans we need both Science and Faith - together, integrated - not fighting petty semantic battles against each other!

Sermon over (once Einstein has spoken):
“science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Anyone willing to argue against Einstein on this?


Context? Quotes can be interpreted many ways without adequate context.

I might just let Einstein argue Einstein:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

“Remember, rewards come in action, not in discussion.” Tony Robbins
The following user(s) said Thank You: Loudzoo, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Feb 2019 08:34 #334734 by Loudzoo
Replied by Loudzoo on topic Faith vs science
Apologies to Gisteron - I suspect this part of the thread will be annoying him! Thank you Ren: Science doesn’t exist without people. It may seem possible to separate the two, but it can’t be done. People are embedded in the principles of inference.

Yup - Einstein was a Spinoza fan, and I think it would be fair to call him a mystic. Not to the extent of Newton perhaps, but still . . . he chose his words very carefully there in Manu’s quote: “personal God”. He wasn’t religious himself but realised that faith in something (the universe, people, the transcendent, religion) was an important part of metaphysics. I was being naughty quoting him in the first place - but that was an ace response Manu!

Within the scientific method, facts are always on probation. We accept facts until they are refined, improved or thrown out (for instance that stomach ulcers are caused by an infection, not stress or lifestyle). We take facts on faith until we prove them wrong. Faith isn’t a dirty word! Sorry - being naughty again:

“The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.”
The following user(s) said Thank You: Manu, Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.