Belief vs Knowledge - The Force

Hello there,
I've been following a path of positive actions to people around me. People that I never met. They were in need of help but we're not asking for it, I noticed and acted in consequence. People which i just crossed in the Subway, on the street, in a shop. They were so happy, smiling at me with eyes that were telling "why?". That gave me joice and made me happy. People around us saw that and were smiling too. Somebody else helped a new right away someone else in need. Good actions brings happiness to people around you, to the person you're helping and to yourself.
After a couple of weeks, opportunities jumped in front of me and I took then.
It's now been almost a year since I started acting like that, not because of a search of reward but because I was trying to connect with everyone I'd meet.
I was a junkie, I'm now studying to become a primary teacher.
So, is there a god? We'll probably never know. But I can tell you, there is some power, and you can harvest it if you let go of your ego and use it for others. Only then will you be able to receive and see the opportunities that this power brings you. Ego puts a real barrier between the two of you, it blinds people.
That being said, no sciences will prove my story, but it doesn't make it a fake.
Siences has it's limits. The probabilities of being in a simulation is much higher than having a god above us.
I'm a huge science fanboy, from all that I have read/watched/heard/talked, we are our owns gods, but if that's true, let's be pious gods, good for each other.
What do you say?

Robinhood wrote: I'm a huge science fanboy, from all that I have read/watched/heard/talked, we are our owns gods, ...

Well, you haven't read/watched/heard/talked that from a science journal, or text book, or lecture...
Tell me... as a "huge science fanboy", what makes you reject its methods? Now, I understand that you are probably not elected to represent any kind of science fanboy club, so I can't expect you to speak on behalf of your brethren in that fandom. Understand hence my question to be rhetorical more than a genuine query. Why is it that those who "love science" the most tend to be the first to insist and stress just how limited science is and how an utter lack of evidence doesn't mean anything about the reality of their pet woo-woo and how consistently science has failed to disconfirm said woo that is quite deliberately formulated to be maximally unfalsifiable? Why are the "biggest science fans" almost always the ones to most strongly oppose the methods of scientific inquiry?

@Gisteron

This is not to say that I disagree with you - in principle I probably don't - but this does not at all follow. Even if there be a reason our brains have two hemispheres (and by reason I assume you mean some kind of end goal rather than just a historical account of how this came to be), that by no means implies that therefore one "should" anything

Let me start by saying how much I enjoy conversing with you. You have a strong logical mind. I was hoping my point would be more so understood the function of the left brain, while you would be able to function to a large degree, would be significantly less than ideal in handling all of what life has to offer. You'll miss out on a lot of things if you only deal with logic (speaking as a computer programmer) just like you'll miss out if you only deal with creativity. They both draw on each other for balance and for expression. The logical side gives us a system of language but our creative side adds all the herbs and spices that make it interesting. I mean you can eat plain chicken just for the protein and calories but why miss out on the taste to which you can enhance with other flavors? That's how life is (imo). Many people favor one side, whether logic or creativity, over the other and that helps us specialize and work in our professional careers. But even the most creative people use things that exist by way of logical systems. And even the most Spock like logical thinkers use things that wouldn't exist without creativity and imagination.

I don't see (pun intended) that as quite so obvious. Sure, by a literal reading, just because I cannot see light reflected from air, as your example later goes, doesn't mean that there isn't any around.

which is exactly what I'm saying. Continuing from my paragraph above, we have 2 different approaches from which to interact with the world. One is physical. One is not. One is literal. One is metaphoric. You can literally feel something in your hands to know its real. But if the thing is something your hands cannot hold then you must feel it with your heart. Love, for example. Can you see it? Is there any spectrum of which love emits anything that science can read? If your answer is yes then you've completely thwarted my reasoning so congratulations; but if not, then not everything can be measured and this is where belief and faith come in. But know that I do appreciate the extensive to apply science to my example; however, physical sciences all offer "physical" "touching"... you get what I'm saying? It doesn't have to touching with the fingers. Other instruments simply offer alternative means of physical detection.

Scientific theories are not a matter of proof. None of them are proven.

I disagree. The scientific terminology in regards to theories isn't the same as a normal theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of something real that can be tested and proven. For example, the theory of gravity. As proof you can simply drop an object and observe what happens.

A theory is not just a belief. A theory is a model that relates data collected in such a way as to make testable predictions about future findings, and that has made predictions that have been matching subsequent data sets.

I apologize if it was confusing the way that I went from talking about scientific theories to regular theories. However, again, these are not the same; of course.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/[/qoute]

No reason to go down the rabbit hole on that note because we don't disagree. But please note, I did say "scientific theories" when referencing scientific theories and just theories when talking about just theories. I have to say this because there is a little lawyer that seems to exist in many online posters that feels the need to correct everything. But continuing on, belief is sometimes given a religious overtone or connotation and thus anyone who is against religion may also struggle with words like faith and belief. My job involves a lot of problem solving so as I look at the behavior of the program I usually form a (lay) theory about what's happening and I "believe" that this change or that will either correct the problem or at least help to isolate the actual cause. How do I come up with these theories? Ideas inspired by experience, knowledge, and yes... imagination. I need to be able to imagine it. I can then simulate how something is working or how something should work in my imagination. So before I can "create" a solution I have to use both hemispheres of my brain.

I strongly disagree.

Why? Saying we "can" accept "not knowing" is not the same as saying, "we should accept". Can is just an ability. You can murder someone but that doesn't mean you should or that you would get away with it.

Allow me nevertheless this tiny nitpick: Yes, beliefs can lead to finding evidence. They especially lead to confirmation bias, where one filters gathered data through the belief, only to leave confirming - or indeed only disconfirming - evidence to be even acknowledged as such.

I don't consider that a nitpick in the least because I didn't discount such a possibility. However, confirmation bias is still a bias. Most people have biases. However, if you are aware of confirmation bias (as we both seem to be) it is less likely that you will be affected by it. Of course this is where testing comes in. Whether I believe something or not choosing not to test that belief is a separate issue predicated on the idea that one enjoys some level of infallibility. Because my ideas (going back to my occupation) are regularly disproved by my own tests I don't make assumptions that I'm not willing to test. Testing is simply part of the process. So to kind of reach back into my original point... the two hemispheres of the brain work together to function more effectively than either can on its own. So, imho, one should seek balance (in all things) specifically in this case, between knowledge and belief because we get to knowledge often by testing beliefs.

A piece of information spreads more rapidly if people who get to carry it believe it to be true/accurate and important to spread and to remember.

This is absolutely true. I look at belief as something of a virus. A virus is (imo) a "hack" by nature. If one, for example, observes a lot of negative impacts of religion on their society... imo... it would be more effective for them to try and piggy back new ideas under that old umbrella because otherwise those new ideas would not take root. In this case I'm specifically referring to Jesus since I was making reference to him before. If Jesus said "hey guys, I have a new idea but its not Judaism. It's simply love." the reality is that he probably would have been laughed at prior to execution. This was a society built on the Mosaic premise that if you did not accept YHWH as your God then you were subject to death (Ex 31:14, 32:27, etc). Operating under this foundation a new idea could not take root ("go viral") without mimicking the accepted religion. To do so would be a "mutation" but to use that 'canon' has the potential of evolving it. When I say belief in this context I mean all belief, including political beliefs. It would be harder to convert someone to the opposite party than to implant an idea from the opposite party and make it sound conservative or liberal according to that person's leanings. We could also talk about the parable of the sower here as part of his "hacker theory" but that may get too far off topic.

The "strength" of a belief is what often makes the difference. It is the intensity to which one accepts something to be true. The more you believe you can win a game the better your chances of doing so. Why? Because its a mental hack. Your motivations and attitude and all the things that can make you successful are intertwined in the strength of your belief. This is why many religious believers have stories that, for them, are evidence to back up their faith. And while you could say "but that was just a coincidence" they would say otherwise. And even if you are objectively correct their beliefs can actually impact whether or not things happen and can effect the outcome because of how it affects them. For evidence consider this...

pla·ce·bo ef·fect
/pləˈsēbō əˈfekt,ēˈfekt/
noun
a beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment.


What does this mean then? Doesn't this indicate that there is a real benefit to belief?

I find it interesting that the word Theory is used quite a bit....

the·o·ry

noun

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgment, contention
"I reckon that confirms my theory"
principles, ideas, concepts;
principled explanations;
laws;
philosophy, ideology, system of ideas, science
"the theory of quantum physics"
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

Yet the words:
faith

noun

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; optimism, hopefulness, hope, expectation
"he completely justified his boss's faith in him"
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Or

be·lief

noun
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence, freedom from doubt; optimism, hopefulness, hope
"I have no real belief in the power of reason"

Yet Faith and Belief gets torn apart but find in interesting the definitions of Theory, Belief and Faith have so much in common...

ZealotX wrote: Love, for example. Can you see it? Is there any spectrum of which love emits anything that science can read? If your answer is yes then you've completely thwarted my reasoning so congratulations;

Thanks!

https://www.livescience.com/33720-13-scientifically-proven-signs-love.html

Neaj Pa Bol wrote:
Yet Faith and Belief gets torn apart but find in interesting the definitions of Theory, Belief and Faith have so much in common...

Once again, this is not the same thing as a scientific theory...


https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

I have no issue with people having "faith" or believing in anything.

The problem is when belief is confused for reality, and it is used to make decisions that affect others.

So, "I believe in God" does not bother me, whereas "I believe God created people to be less than 6 feet tall, and you are 6 feet 2 inches tall, so now you must die!" does bother me.

ZealotX wrote:

Scientific theories are not a matter of proof. None of them are proven.

I disagree. The scientific terminology in regards to theories isn't the same as a normal theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of something real that can be tested and proven. For example, the theory of gravity. As proof you can simply drop an object and observe what happens.

And yet, "gravity" not being a proposion, it has no truth value. It cannot be proven any more than a question can, or an elephant, for that matter.
One can treat gravity as a fact, or as a set of observations, including the observation of the motion an object performs after you drop it. A scientific theory of gravity would then be a model that accounts for a subset of the "gravity" observation set that has been made in the past and predicts observations to be made in future. It is subject to testing, by all means. We want to measure its worth by the size of the set of past observations it accounts for, the size of the set of accurate predictions it makes, and the costs involved in making those predictions, but no amount of testing can ever serve to prove. You can perhaps prove that assuming a given theory of gravity, a certain prediction follows, or that a theory that contradicts it indeed does so and would fail to make accurate predictions within the same margins of error. And in some colloquial or perhaps legal sense one can say that as room for reasonable doubt ever more disappears the theory becomes effectively "proven", but it is not proof in any stricter technical sense. This hard barrier between "true" reality if there is any such thing at all, and our grasp of it is the entire basis of that sermon we keep hearing about the limitations of science, the problem of induction, if you will.

Neaj Pa Bol wrote: Yet Faith and Belief gets torn apart but find in interesting the definitions of Theory, Belief and Faith have so much in common...

Yea, and yet people don't mean one and the same thing when they use the terms. Weird, innit? It's almost like the one in half a dozen words a dictionary lists as sometimes used to mean the same thing in particular contexts might not mean that they have all that much in common. It's almost like cherry-picking a dictionary doesn't help in understanding what people are saying. So in the spirit of understanding, what is your point? What bearing do these entries have on anything else the thread has been about so far?

Gisteron wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Scientific theories are not a matter of proof. None of them are proven.

I disagree. The scientific terminology in regards to theories isn't the same as a normal theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of something real that can be tested and proven. For example, the theory of gravity. As proof you can simply drop an object and observe what happens.

And yet, "gravity" not being a proposion, it has no truth value. It cannot be proven any more than a question can, or an elephant, for that matter.
One can treat gravity as a fact, or as a set of observations, including the observation of the motion an object performs after you drop it. A scientific theory of gravity would then be a model that accounts for a subset of the "gravity" observation set that has been made in the past and predicts observations to be made in future. It is subject to testing, by all means. We want to measure its worth by the size of the set of past observations it accounts for, the size of the set of accurate predictions it makes, and the costs involved in making those predictions, but no amount of testing can ever serve to prove. You can perhaps prove that assuming a given theory of gravity, a certain prediction follows, or that a theory that contradicts it indeed does so and would fail to make accurate predictions within the same margins of error. And in some colloquial or perhaps legal sense one can say that as room for reasonable doubt ever more disappears the theory becomes effectively "proven", but it is not proof in any stricter technical sense. This hard barrier between "true" reality if there is any such thing at all, and our grasp of it is the entire basis of that sermon we keep hearing about the limitations of science, the problem of induction, if you will.

Neaj Pa Bol wrote: Yet Faith and Belief gets torn apart but find in interesting the definitions of Theory, Belief and Faith have so much in common...

Yea, and yet people don't mean one and the same thing when they use the terms. Weird, innit? It's almost like the one in half a dozen words a dictionary lists as sometimes used to mean the same thing in particular contexts might not mean that they have all that much in common. It's almost like cherry-picking a dictionary doesn't help in understanding what people are saying. So in the spirit of understanding, what is your point? What bearing do these entries have on anything else the thread has been about so far?

https://medium.com/@EclecticScience/theory-idea-vs-theory-scientific-ab74e2d4f737

Oh, so nothing then. Just pointing out that words have various usages and that context matters. Alright. Thanks!