FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Belief or Truth, What's The Difference?
Belief or Truth, What's The Difference?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I believe in absolute truth  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I cant believe its not butter, truth is its not "I can't believe it's not better, tbh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientific evidence " Scientific evidence is based on theory and approximate measurement. It is not absolute truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One is more dependable than the other
I believe in absolute truth "Absolute truth, it's difficult to understand what that is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientific evidence Scientific evidence is based on theory and approximate measurement. It is not absolute truth. " Isn't scientific evidence scientific theory proved right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belief is faith in truth without empirical evidence. Truth can be quantified by empirical evidence. That evidence may later be shown to be a fallacy and/or new evidence discovered, which is totally fine. That's why truth can change without it having being mendacious in the first place" Exactly, which is why I don't have much faith in the scientific method as being the arbiter of absolute truth. Interesting question lol! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientific evidence Scientific evidence is based on theory and approximate measurement. It is not absolute truth. Isn't scientific evidence scientific theory proved right?" Scientific evidence supports scientific theory thereby making that theory stronger, it does not though validate it as absolute truth. It still remains theory or some would say belief. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Truth is just today's perceived belief structure. Belief is both yesterday's and tomorrow's truth. It's fluid and subjective. Even if they'd have you believe its objective. Hope this helps. " It does help, thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belief is faith in truth without empirical evidence. Truth can be quantified by empirical evidence. That evidence may later be shown to be a fallacy and/or new evidence discovered, which is totally fine. That's why truth can change without it having being mendacious in the first place and beliefs can be deeply ingrained even when empirical evidence refutes them." If truth can change then it cannot have been truth. It must only have ever been belief. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belief is faith in truth without empirical evidence. Truth can be quantified by empirical evidence. That evidence may later be shown to be a fallacy and/or new evidence discovered, which is totally fine. That's why truth can change without it having being mendacious in the first place and beliefs can be deeply ingrained even when empirical evidence refutes them. If truth can change then it cannot have been truth. It must only have ever been belief." It was truth at the time. Those that cling to it when additional evidence is brought to bear have belief. Look at the concept of humours in medicine and the herbs that treated imbalances. Some have proved to be correct years later but not because of the original concept but because of a specific compound they contain. There was some empirical truth in amongst the belief. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did." Theory....evolution did | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did." Belief and truth - God used evolution to create man. Devil's advocate, anyone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Belief and truth - God used evolution to create man. Devil's advocate, anyone?" Both just theories - one using magical thinking, the other using scientific thinking - both may or may not contain differing amounts of truth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right." I stink therefore I'm shite | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. I stink therefore I'm shite "Correlation does not imply causation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is no absolute truth, it is all relative. " And yet I know my mother loved me - that was a truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Theory....evolution did " Lol its not a theory. Its a scientific fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Theory....evolution did " Well we're an old pair of fossils anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Belief and truth - God used evolution to create man. Devil's advocate, anyone?" Why did God make dinosaurs?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Belief and truth - God used evolution to create man. Devil's advocate, anyone? Why did God make dinosaurs?? "Any true believer knows the devil put them bones in the earth to trick humans into thinking the planet is 4 billion years old. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right." Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Theory....evolution did Lol its not a theory. Its a scientific fact " Evolution is - random evolution is not. There was some pertinent evidence lately, but I can't remember what it was.... a strand of genetics.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belief is faith in truth without empirical evidence. Truth can be quantified by empirical evidence. That evidence may later be shown to be a fallacy and/or new evidence discovered, which is totally fine. That's why truth can change without it having being mendacious in the first place and beliefs can be deeply ingrained even when empirical evidence refutes them. If truth can change then it cannot have been truth. It must only have ever been belief." Truth can never change. Only what you believe to be true. Beliefs change. When people speak of truth, they mean their truth as they understand it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And yet I know my mother loved me - that was a truth. "Is it? Have you heard of the theory of 'Last Thursdayism'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belief is faith in truth without empirical evidence. Truth can be quantified by empirical evidence. That evidence may later be shown to be a fallacy and/or new evidence discovered, which is totally fine. That's why truth can change without it having being mendacious in the first place and beliefs can be deeply ingrained even when empirical evidence refutes them. If truth can change then it cannot have been truth. It must only have ever been belief. Truth can never change. Only what you believe to be true. Beliefs change. When people speak of truth, they mean their truth as they understand it. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belief is faith in truth without empirical evidence. Truth can be quantified by empirical evidence. That evidence may later be shown to be a fallacy and/or new evidence discovered, which is totally fine. That's why truth can change without it having being mendacious in the first place and beliefs can be deeply ingrained even when empirical evidence refutes them. If truth can change then it cannot have been truth. It must only have ever been belief. Truth can never change. Only what you believe to be true. Beliefs change. When people speak of truth, they mean their truth as they understand it. " Not me - I mean absolute truth whether I perceive it yet or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Theory....evolution did Lol its not a theory. Its a scientific fact " 'Scientific fact' as you put it, is theory. (Your lol is misplaced). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feeling a bit philosophical today. What's the difference between belief and truth?" I believe you are hot and that's the thruth
MrsSB | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Theory....evolution did Lol its not a theory. Its a scientific fact 'Scientific fact' as you put it, is theory. (Your lol is misplaced)." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure." It is not a belief structure.If gravity was a belief and not fact would you test it by jumping out a window.Spiritual beliefs are not theories.At best it's a poor hypothesis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And yet I know my mother loved me - that was a truth.
Is it? Have you heard of the theory of 'Last Thursdayism'?"No but I'll google it lol! I think this might have been the theory I had in mind but I don't have time to study it - I'm off for a swim!! "The "classical" Darwinian model of the evolution of cells is based on a mechanism whereby cells individually undergo mutation, with the process of natural selection then culling out those mutations which are less beneficial to the organism. Quantum evolution is an attempt to provide a theoretical mechanism which would skew these random mutations in favor of some outcome beneficial to the cell. It should be stated at the outset that this hypothesis would only be useful if indeed there were evidence that some sort of adaptive mutation occurs - in other words, if there were experimental data showing that the classical model of random mutation is lacking, and that certain mutations are "preferred" (occur more frequently) because they confer a greater benefit to the organism. This is a controversial subject in and of itself; a plethora of papers have been published on the enigmatic phenomenon of adaptive mutation and the issue of their origin and mechanism remains unresolved. To date there is no such generally accepted mechanistic explanation of adaptive mutation." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure.It is not a belief structure.If gravity was a belief and not fact would you test it by jumping out a window.Spiritual beliefs are not theories.At best it's a poor hypothesis." What's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Truth can never change. Only what you believe to be true. Beliefs change. When people speak of truth, they mean their truth as they understand it. "
Their truth as they believe it to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And yet I know my mother loved me - that was a truth.
Is it? Have you heard of the theory of 'Last Thursdayism'?
No but I'll google it lol! I think this might have been the theory I had in mind but I don't have time to study it - I'm off for a swim!!
"The "classical" Darwinian model of the evolution of cells is based on a mechanism whereby cells individually undergo mutation, with the process of natural selection then culling out those mutations which are less beneficial to the organism. Quantum evolution is an attempt to provide a theoretical mechanism which would skew these random mutations in favor of some outcome beneficial to the cell.
It should be stated at the outset that this hypothesis would only be useful if indeed there were evidence that some sort of adaptive mutation occurs - in other words, if there were experimental data showing that the classical model of random mutation is lacking, and that certain mutations are "preferred" (occur more frequently) because they confer a greater benefit to the organism. This is a controversial subject in and of itself; a plethora of papers have been published on the enigmatic phenomenon of adaptive mutation and the issue of their origin and mechanism remains unresolved. To date there is no such generally accepted mechanistic explanation of adaptive mutation.""There you go....just theories | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Truth can never change. Only what you believe to be true. Beliefs change. When people speak of truth, they mean their truth as they understand it.
Their truth as they believe it to be."Can't argue with that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feeling a bit philosophical today. What's the difference between belief and truth? I believe you are hot and that's the thruth
MrsSB "Thank you xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feeling a bit philosophical today. What's the difference between belief and truth? I believe you are hot and that's the thruth
MrsSB
Thank you xx"My pleasure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure.It is not a belief structure.If gravity was a belief and not fact would you test it by jumping out a window.Spiritual beliefs are not theories.At best it's a poor hypothesis. What's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? " God as creator is a hypothesis. Based on beliefs.Much like the flat earth hypothesis.Based on the earth looking flat from where you stand. Evolution is a theory based on facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure.It is not a belief structure.If gravity was a belief and not fact would you test it by jumping out a window.Spiritual beliefs are not theories.At best it's a poor hypothesis. What's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? God as creator is a hypothesis. Based on beliefs.Much like the flat earth hypothesis.Based on the earth looking flat from where you stand. Evolution is a theory based on facts. " They are synonymous both are theories or hypotheses, the difference is the amount of evidence confirming or disconfirming them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure.It is not a belief structure.If gravity was a belief and not fact would you test it by jumping out a window.Spiritual beliefs are not theories.At best it's a poor hypothesis. What's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? God as creator is a hypothesis. Based on beliefs.Much like the flat earth hypothesis.Based on the earth looking flat from where you stand. Evolution is a theory based on facts. " Also 'facts' are just data that appear to confirm a theory currently, but they are no longer 'facts' once the theory fails to provide enough explanatory power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure.It is not a belief structure.If gravity was a belief and not fact would you test it by jumping out a window.Spiritual beliefs are not theories.At best it's a poor hypothesis. What's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? God as creator is a hypothesis. Based on beliefs.Much like the flat earth hypothesis.Based on the earth looking flat from where you stand. Evolution is a theory based on facts. Also 'facts' are just data that appear to confirm a theory currently, but they are no longer 'facts' once the theory fails to provide enough explanatory power." In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure.It is not a belief structure.If gravity was a belief and not fact would you test it by jumping out a window.Spiritual beliefs are not theories.At best it's a poor hypothesis. What's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? God as creator is a hypothesis. Based on beliefs.Much like the flat earth hypothesis.Based on the earth looking flat from where you stand. Evolution is a theory based on facts. Also 'facts' are just data that appear to confirm a theory currently, but they are no longer 'facts' once the theory fails to provide enough explanatory power.In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science." Like the Flat Earth Theory? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you believe gravity is a version of the truth.Of course you dont its a fact.You can't choose your own personal truth because you have beliefs. " Gravity according to Isaac Newton's theory is scientific fact. Gravity according to Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is simply an illusion. Which truth are you referring to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you believe gravity is a version of the truth.Of course you dont its a fact.You can't choose your own personal truth because you have beliefs. Gravity according to Isaac Newton's theory is scientific fact. Gravity according to Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is simply an illusion. Which truth are you referring to?" see above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also it's useful to know.A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain" Ok I buy your distinctions Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Nice explanation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also it's useful to know.A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain" Take just this specific post you've made. You state that the 'law' of gravity 'says that if you let go of something it'll FALL'. You state Newton's theory (the truth of the day) did a good job explaining it, but his theory cannot be true if Einstein is right. You state 'Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it', but if his theory is right then the law you state is wrong. His theory means that nothing FALLS if you let go of it. What you call facts are observation and the interpretation by the observer of those observations. Surely you understand that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok I buy your distinctions Thanks"I on the other hand do not when the distinction is an attempt to explain the difference between belief and truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you believe gravity is a version of the truth.Of course you dont its a fact.You can't choose your own personal truth because you have beliefs. Gravity according to Isaac Newton's theory is scientific fact. Gravity according to Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is simply an illusion. Which truth are you referring to?" . From my understanding nothing in Einstein's theory undermines anything in Newton's laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you believe gravity is a version of the truth.Of course you dont its a fact.You can't choose your own personal truth because you have beliefs. Gravity according to Isaac Newton's theory is scientific fact. Gravity according to Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is simply an illusion. Which truth are you referring to?. From my understanding nothing in Einstein's theory undermines anything in Newton's laws." It can be argued that nothing in scientific theory undermines the existence of God. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you believe gravity is a version of the truth.Of course you dont its a fact.You can't choose your own personal truth because you have beliefs. Gravity according to Isaac Newton's theory is scientific fact. Gravity according to Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is simply an illusion. Which truth are you referring to?. From my understanding nothing in Einstein's theory undermines anything in Newton's laws. It can be argued that nothing in scientific theory undermines the existence of God. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you believe gravity is a version of the truth.Of course you dont its a fact.You can't choose your own personal truth because you have beliefs. Gravity according to Isaac Newton's theory is scientific fact. Gravity according to Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is simply an illusion. Which truth are you referring to?. From my understanding nothing in Einstein's theory undermines anything in Newton's laws. It can be argued that nothing in scientific theory undermines the existence of God. " . The god concept is like those adverts for pills which give giant cocks.... They promise much but deliver nothing even with all the belief in the world(so they say ).
Scientific theories are Viagra, it works without needing belief.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok I buy your distinctions Thanks
I on the other hand do not when the distinction is an attempt to explain the difference between belief and truth. "I bought his distinctions on what a theory is compared to laws and a hypothesis. Like you I have a different view on 'facts' and the difference between beliefs and truth. Your comments above on Science and God illustrate some of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belief is faith in truth without empirical evidence. Truth can be quantified by empirical evidence. That evidence may later be shown to be a fallacy and/or new evidence discovered, which is totally fine. That's why truth can change without it having being mendacious in the first place Exactly, which is why I don't have much faith in the scientific method as being the arbiter of absolute truth. Interesting question lol!" How on earth can't you have faith in scientific method? Don't you drive cars, fly, use computers, mobile phones, consumer goods, tv, satellites, etc, etc, etc. Without scientific method we'd be back in the 1700s. It's all dependent on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Theory....evolution did " And theory = truth. There is zero doubt about this one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Theory....evolution did Lol its not a theory. Its a scientific fact Evolution is - random evolution is not. There was some pertinent evidence lately, but I can't remember what it was.... a strand of genetics. "Evolution by natural selection based on random mutation, fully suppoted by the evidence. That's it, no evidence for anything else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is empirical evidence and scientific consensus. However as we now live in a post truth age.With the internet as an echo chamber for confirmation bias.Truth has become irrelevant.I think therfore I am right. Empirical evidence is simply belief based on observation and experience. At this stage in our evolution the consensus is to give more 'belief' to empirical based belief than to faith based belief....but it's still a belief structure.It is not a belief structure.If gravity was a belief and not fact would you test it by jumping out a window.Spiritual beliefs are not theories.At best it's a poor hypothesis. What's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? God as creator is a hypothesis. Based on beliefs.Much like the flat earth hypothesis.Based on the earth looking flat from where you stand. Evolution is a theory based on facts. Also 'facts' are just data that appear to confirm a theory currently, but they are no longer 'facts' once the theory fails to provide enough explanatory power.In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science. Like the Flat Earth Theory?" There is no flat earth theory, There is a flat earth fantasy, this being at a level considerably lower than hypothesis since proving the earth is (roughly) spherical is easy enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you believe gravity is a version of the truth.Of course you dont its a fact.You can't choose your own personal truth because you have beliefs. Gravity according to Isaac Newton's theory is scientific fact. Gravity according to Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is simply an illusion. Which truth are you referring to?. From my understanding nothing in Einstein's theory undermines anything in Newton's laws. It can be argued that nothing in scientific theory undermines the existence of God. " Who said it did? But to be fair, there is no, as in zero, evidence for the existence of gods. Most of the so called evidence is based on lack of understanding of nature, or the assumption that because we can't explain something scientifcally it must be the action of god(s). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For balance you should add it doesn't undermine the existence of pink elephants or flying spaghetti monsters" The evidence for the latter being as strong as for the christian god for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Three people all experience the same thing. They each describe it as the truth. The each believe it is the truth. Each account is different. Which is the true version? The nearest I get to understanding 'truth' now is that it is not deliberately presenting a falsehood. Believe what you will. " But that's why we have scientific method, to allow us to test the thing and see which of the three, if any, is correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Three people all experience the same thing. They each describe it as the truth. The each believe it is the truth. Each account is different. Which is the true version? The nearest I get to understanding 'truth' now is that it is not deliberately presenting a falsehood. Believe what you will. But that's why we have scientific method, to allow us to test the thing and see which of the three, if any, is correct." How does the scientific method work with relationships?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Issac newton was a bit wild lol he beleived in god 1 thing him and einstein had in common both apparently had asbergers syndrom. " Albert Einstein did not believe in God. It's a widespread misunderstanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Issac newton was a bit wild lol he beleived in god 1 thing him and einstein had in common both apparently had asbergers syndrom. Albert Einstein did not believe in God. It's a widespread misunderstanding." Newton did | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Exactly, which is why I don't have much faith in the scientific method as being the arbiter of absolute truth. Interesting question lol! How on earth can't you have faith in scientific method? Don't you drive cars, fly, use computers, mobile phones, consumer goods, tv, satellites, etc, etc, etc. Without scientific method we'd be back in the 1700s. It's all dependent on it." You're attempting to twist what she said, you've chosen to miss out the all important 'as being the arbiter of absolute truth'. The scientific method is based on empirical evidence, human observation, which by its very nature does not operate in the realm of absolutes. The scientific method is by consensus the best we have but no academic scientist will tell you it provides absolutes. It's just the best current method in their opinion we have. That's why we use the word theories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Three people all experience the same thing. They each describe it as the truth. The each believe it is the truth. Each account is different. Which is the true version? The nearest I get to understanding 'truth' now is that it is not deliberately presenting a falsehood. Believe what you will. " I like that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belife.... god created man. Truth.... evolution did. Theory....evolution did And theory = truth. There is zero doubt about this one." . I get sick of telling people this?. I just don't think people realise there's as much if not more evidence for evolution than there is for the Holocaust.... Now honestly who (except for morons and people with other agendas) quips... That Holocaust..yahh just a theory  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belief is faith in truth without empirical evidence. Truth can be quantified by empirical evidence. That evidence may later be shown to be a fallacy and/or new evidence discovered, which is totally fine. That's why truth can change without it having being mendacious in the first place and beliefs can be deeply ingrained even when empirical evidence refutes them." This. Truth is dymanic, beliefs are dogmatic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But that's why we have scientific method, to allow us to test the thing and see which of the three, if any, is correct." If you are right in your assertion then science is never wrong and always correct. Do you believe that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Evolution by natural selection based on random mutation, fully suppoted by the evidence. That's it, no evidence for anything else." You are mistaken. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Exactly, which is why I don't have much faith in the scientific method as being the arbiter of absolute truth. ! How on earth can't you have faith in scientific method? " That's not what I said is it - I suggest you think about the whole sentence I wrote instead of just the first half. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But that's why we have scientific method, to allow us to test the thing and see which of the three, if any, is correct. If you are right in your assertion then science is never wrong and always correct. Do you believe that?" No, if you believe in the scientific method, science gives us the best explanation for a phenomenon, given the current evidence. This explnanation could change tomorrow. Dogma (faith) never changes in spite of evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Exactly, which is why I don't have much faith in the scientific method as being the arbiter of absolute truth. Interesting question lol! How on earth can't you have faith in scientific method? Don't you drive cars, fly, use computers, mobile phones, consumer goods, tv, satellites, etc, etc, etc. Without scientific method we'd be back in the 1700s. It's all dependent on it. You're attempting to twist what she said, you've chosen to miss out the all important 'as being the arbiter of absolute truth'. The scientific method is based on empirical evidence, human observation, which by its very nature does not operate in the realm of absolutes. The scientific method is by consensus the best we have but no academic scientist will tell you it provides absolutes. It's just the best current method in their opinion we have. That's why we use the word theories. " Thank you. Science is incomplete and subject to continual change as knowledge is added and up dated, frequently showing that what was previously believed to be true was in fact false, or only partially true. Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But that's why we have scientific method, to allow us to test the thing and see which of the three, if any, is correct. If you are right in your assertion then science is never wrong and always correct. Do you believe that? No, if you believe in the scientific method, science gives us the best explanation for a phenomenon, given the current evidence. This explnanation could change tomorrow. Dogma (faith) never changes in spite of evidence. " Faith and dogma are very different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Evolution by natural selection based on random mutation, fully suppoted by the evidence. That's it, no evidence for anything else. You are mistaken." There really isn't. On the bacterial level, you can actually watch evolution happening (short generation time). So, whilst it is possible that new evidence could come to light disproving evolution, it is improbable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But that's why we have scientific method, to allow us to test the thing and see which of the three, if any, is correct. If you are right in your assertion then science is never wrong and always correct. Do you believe that? No, if you believe in the scientific method, science gives us the best explanation for a phenomenon, given the current evidence. This explnanation could change tomorrow. Dogma (faith) never changes in spite of evidence. Faith and dogma are very different." No, they are the dame. Faith is by its nature dogmatic, you have to believe athing, in spite of the total lack of evidence thereof. You have to make a "leap of" faith. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Belief is faith in truth without empirical evidence. Truth can be quantified by empirical evidence. That evidence may later be shown to be a fallacy and/or new evidence discovered, which is totally fine. That's why truth can change without it having being mendacious in the first place and beliefs can be deeply ingrained even when empirical evidence refutes them. This. Truth is dymanic, beliefs are dogmatic. " That's only one perspective. I would say truth is unchanging, my belief or even faith is always dynamic according to the evidence I become aware of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But that's why we have scientific method, to allow us to test the thing and see which of the three, if any, is correct. If you are right in your assertion then science is never wrong and always correct. Do you believe that? No, if you believe in the scientific method, science gives us the best explanation for a phenomenon, given the current evidence. This explnanation could change tomorrow. Dogma (faith) never changes in spite of evidence. Faith and dogma are very different. No, they are the dame. Faith is by its nature dogmatic, you have to believe athing, in spite of the total lack of evidence thereof. You have to make a "leap of" faith. " I disagree. I can have faith in a person according to the evidence I have seen, if they let me down, I may lose it in an instant - no dogma there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly."" . You've peaked my interest, tell me more  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Evolution by natural selection based on random mutation, fully suppoted by the evidence. That's it, no evidence for anything else. You are mistaken. There really isn't. On the bacterial level, you can actually watch evolution happening (short generation time). So, whilst it is possible that new evidence could come to light disproving evolution, it is improbable. " I believe there is irrefutable evidence for the process of evolution, but evidence that it may not be entirely random, eg as I quoted above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can have faith in a person according to the evidence I have seen, if they let me down, I may lose it in an instant - no dogma there." That's a misuse of the word 'faith.' What you mean here is 'trust.' You can trust a person based on your past experiences with them. Faith is defined as a belief in something despite a lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly.". You've peaked my interest, tell me more "It's axiomatic - new evidence, new research, new studies, are continually changing the balance of probabilities in many if not most fields of medicine. What was 'right' yesterday is highly likely not to be right tomorrow! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can have faith in a person according to the evidence I have seen, if they let me down, I may lose it in an instant - no dogma there. That's a misuse of the word 'faith.' What you mean here is 'trust.' You can trust a person based on your past experiences with them. Faith is defined as a belief in something despite a lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary." Online dictionary simply says " complete trust or confidence in someone or something." - which makes it you that's misusing the word! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can have faith in a person according to the evidence I have seen, if they let me down, I may lose it in an instant - no dogma there. That's a misuse of the word 'faith.' What you mean here is 'trust.' You can trust a person based on your past experiences with them. Faith is defined as a belief in something despite a lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. Online dictionary simply says " complete trust or confidence in someone or something." - which makes it you that's misusing the word! " Woah, I'm never wrong, you can believe that!  The second definition is belief based on little or no evidence so I wasn't misusing it at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly.". You've peaked my interest, tell me more
It's axiomatic - new evidence, new research, new studies, are continually changing the balance of probabilities in many if not most fields of medicine. What was 'right' yesterday is highly likely not to be right tomorrow!". So it's working on the best evidence available at the time?. What's the alternative? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". What's the alternative?" More science! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can have faith in a person according to the evidence I have seen, if they let me down, I may lose it in an instant - no dogma there. That's a misuse of the word 'faith.' What you mean here is 'trust.' You can trust a person based on your past experiences with them. Faith is defined as a belief in something despite a lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. Online dictionary simply says " complete trust or confidence in someone or something." - which makes it you that's misusing the word! Woah, I'm never wrong, you can believe that! The second definition is belief based on little or no evidence so I wasn't misusing it at all."God that is so dogmatic of you!! Dictionary definitions are 'either/or' surely you understand this? Faith does NOT have to consist of a lack of evidence, on the contrary, it is often BASED on evidence! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly.". You've peaked my interest, tell me more
It's axiomatic - new evidence, new research, new studies, are continually changing the balance of probabilities in many if not most fields of medicine. What was 'right' yesterday is highly likely not to be right tomorrow!.
So it's working on the best evidence available at the time?.
What's the alternative?"I'm not suggesting a need for one - I am saying it is foolish to put too much faith in sciences like modern medicine - use it as a tool, but always be aware that it is a very imperfect tool and can often be improved upon. Question continually - the search for truth DEMANDS a mind that remains open! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". What's the alternative? More science!" . Nothing would ever happen seeking absolutes except the pursuit of absolutes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" God that is so dogmatic of you!! Dictionary definitions are 'either/or' surely you understand this? Faith does NOT have to consist of a lack of evidence, on the contrary, it is often BASED on evidence!" Can you throw in the occasional smiley so I know we're keeping this light-hearted? You used faith as a synonym for trust. Trust is based upon personal experiences is subjective and isn't a particularly reliable source of evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly.". You've peaked my interest, tell me more
It's axiomatic - new evidence, new research, new studies, are continually changing the balance of probabilities in many if not most fields of medicine. What was 'right' yesterday is highly likely not to be right tomorrow!.
So it's working on the best evidence available at the time?.
What's the alternative?
I'm not suggesting a need for one - I am saying it is foolish to put too much faith in sciences like modern medicine - use it as a tool, but always be aware that it is a very imperfect tool and can often be improved upon. Question continually - the search for truth DEMANDS a mind that remains open!". None of that matters to me, I just want something that works without me having to have belief in it working?. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work regardless of my beliefs about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" God that is so dogmatic of you!! Dictionary definitions are 'either/or' surely you understand this? Faith does NOT have to consist of a lack of evidence, on the contrary, it is often BASED on evidence! Can you throw in the occasional smiley so I know we're keeping this light-hearted? You used faith as a synonym for trust. Trust is based upon personal experiences is subjective and isn't a particularly reliable source of evidence. "I disagree, that's not what I have in my mind actually - I am referring to a kind of blinkered, blind, dogmatic trust in modern medicine which ceases to consider evidence, even rejects it, and therefore I think can be described as a faith. It's like turbo-trust. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly.". You've peaked my interest, tell me more
It's axiomatic - new evidence, new research, new studies, are continually changing the balance of probabilities in many if not most fields of medicine. What was 'right' yesterday is highly likely not to be right tomorrow!.
So it's working on the best evidence available at the time?.
What's the alternative?
I'm not suggesting a need for one - I am saying it is foolish to put too much faith in sciences like modern medicine - use it as a tool, but always be aware that it is a very imperfect tool and can often be improved upon. Question continually - the search for truth DEMANDS a mind that remains open!.
None of that matters to me, I just want something that works without me having to have belief in it working?.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work regardless of my beliefs about it"Sadly the placebo effect makes this almost impossible to achieve in human medicine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" God that is so dogmatic of you!! Dictionary definitions are 'either/or' surely you understand this? Faith does NOT have to consist of a lack of evidence, on the contrary, it is often BASED on evidence! Can you throw in the occasional smiley so I know we're keeping this light-hearted? You used faith as a synonym for trust. Trust is based upon personal experiences is subjective and isn't a particularly reliable source of evidence. "Unfortunately science is also often biased by the subjective selection of evidence. Pesky humans again..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly.". You've peaked my interest, tell me more
It's axiomatic - new evidence, new research, new studies, are continually changing the balance of probabilities in many if not most fields of medicine. What was 'right' yesterday is highly likely not to be right tomorrow!.
So it's working on the best evidence available at the time?.
What's the alternative?
I'm not suggesting a need for one - I am saying it is foolish to put too much faith in sciences like modern medicine - use it as a tool, but always be aware that it is a very imperfect tool and can often be improved upon. Question continually - the search for truth DEMANDS a mind that remains open!.
None of that matters to me, I just want something that works without me having to have belief in it working?.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work regardless of my beliefs about it"“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial - mental and spiritual.” – R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University , “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005) (source) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feeling a bit philosophical today. What's the difference between belief and truth?" I believe you are thick as fuck, but the truth is you're not. Comprende? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feeling a bit philosophical today. What's the difference between belief and truth? I believe you are thick as fuck, but the truth is you're not. Comprende? "Haha, give the man a brownie point! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly.". You've peaked my interest, tell me more
It's axiomatic - new evidence, new research, new studies, are continually changing the balance of probabilities in many if not most fields of medicine. What was 'right' yesterday is highly likely not to be right tomorrow!.
So it's working on the best evidence available at the time?.
What's the alternative?
I'm not suggesting a need for one - I am saying it is foolish to put too much faith in sciences like modern medicine - use it as a tool, but always be aware that it is a very imperfect tool and can often be improved upon. Question continually - the search for truth DEMANDS a mind that remains open!.
None of that matters to me, I just want something that works without me having to have belief in it working?.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work regardless of my beliefs about it
Sadly the placebo effect makes this almost impossible to achieve in human medicine.". I can't understand the panic with these antibiotics then.... Why don't they just hand out smarties instead? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly.". You've peaked my interest, tell me more
It's axiomatic - new evidence, new research, new studies, are continually changing the balance of probabilities in many if not most fields of medicine. What was 'right' yesterday is highly likely not to be right tomorrow!.
So it's working on the best evidence available at the time?.
What's the alternative?
I'm not suggesting a need for one - I am saying it is foolish to put too much faith in sciences like modern medicine - use it as a tool, but always be aware that it is a very imperfect tool and can often be improved upon. Question continually - the search for truth DEMANDS a mind that remains open!.
None of that matters to me, I just want something that works without me having to have belief in it working?.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work regardless of my beliefs about it
Sadly the placebo effect makes this almost impossible to achieve in human medicine..
I can't understand the panic with these antibiotics then.... Why don't they just hand out smarties instead?"Too much blind faith......never heard of antibiotic resistance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Medicine is the field of science I know most about, and it is deeply, deeply flawed, as every reasoning medic will confirm. "We see through a glass darkly.". You've peaked my interest, tell me more
It's axiomatic - new evidence, new research, new studies, are continually changing the balance of probabilities in many if not most fields of medicine. What was 'right' yesterday is highly likely not to be right tomorrow!.
So it's working on the best evidence available at the time?.
What's the alternative?
I'm not suggesting a need for one - I am saying it is foolish to put too much faith in sciences like modern medicine - use it as a tool, but always be aware that it is a very imperfect tool and can often be improved upon. Question continually - the search for truth DEMANDS a mind that remains open!.
None of that matters to me, I just want something that works without me having to have belief in it working?.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work regardless of my beliefs about it
Sadly the placebo effect makes this almost impossible to achieve in human medicine..
I can't understand the panic with these antibiotics then.... Why don't they just hand out smarties instead?
Too much blind faith......never heard of antibiotic resistance?". Yes, that's why we need new ones, I was saying if the placebo effect was any good why not just hand out smarties?.... I'm no expert but I'd conclude that its because it wouldn't work? Where as new antibiotics would. I'm only interested in stuff that works not truisms, if placebos work with just faith then let's roll with that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". “A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial - mental and spiritual.” – R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University , “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005) (source)"
Brilliant.
There are some on this thread trying to afford science a standard that science does not afford itself.
The scientific method which is based on human observation is at a crossroads. Quantum theory has seen to that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Too much blind faith......never heard of antibiotic resistance?. Yes, that's why we need new ones, I was saying if the placebo effect was any good why not just hand out smarties?.... !" That is the point hun - in some cases the placebos do work as well as the medication. And sometimes antibiotics don't work - never heard of mrsa? We are staring at the abyss on the subject of antibiotic resistance, science totally fucked up on that one..... But that has nothing to do with this debate, it's a straw dog. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". “A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial - mental and spiritual.” – R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University , “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005) (source)
Brilliant.
There are some on this thread trying to afford science a standard that science does not afford itself.
The scientific method which is based on human observation is at a crossroads. Quantum theory has seen to that."Yup, and in my opinion quantum theory is the beginning of a description of spiritual law. I watch with great interest!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have our perceptions of everything, even of anything that may be the truth. Our perceptions are abstractions, limited by our senses, our biases and filters and so are very unlikely to match reality 100%. Our beliefs, subject to similar biases, cognitive limitations as well as experience, are just a grasp upon something but will be a personality unique take upon a subject. We're quite limited in what we can contemplate and understand and awash with conscious and unconscious biases. It's probably better to think in terms of probabilities than truths. How likely is something? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Yup, and in my opinion quantum theory is the beginning of a description of spiritual law. I watch with great interest!! "Very exciting times ahead. A lot of people simply don't appreciate that a number of cutting edge scientists believe we play a part in creating our reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Belief is a human construct which may or may not contain truth. Truth is a natural construct which may or may not be believed." Me " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who is into this stuff, an impressive display of argument from Fabbers here. One common error is to use the word theory as if it meant mere soeculation. In science a theory is more than just a mere opinion based on some or little evidence. A theory must be based on all available evidence (the theory of evolution is pretty much this) or where it is based in most evidence but does not explain all phenomena it must concede that it does not explain these... quantum theory is an example of the latter. The theory that God exists is not a theory in this sense at all and is a postulation based on the notion that some things are otherwise inexplicable. (See three arguments for the existence of god)" A scientific theory is the best guess we have if we limit our evidence to the repeatable empirical mechanical world but we cannot say definitively that it is truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a big difference in the word 'theory' , in how it is used in everyday speech and how it is used in science. In science , for something to be a theory, it already has to be backed up by a lot of data, measurements , experiments etc. In everyday use the word 'theory' , can really just be an idea that pops into your head." I suggest to you that the meaning of the word theory becomes almost irrelevant to the average layperson who is taught very basic science. If you're taught something in school the chances are that you'll believe it. That belief becomes your truth. For many, truth is subjective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is a logical truth x However implausible, astounding , incomprehensible, amazing and statistically exponentially long odds that our universe occurred , shall we say naturally The statistical plausibility of a sentient creator existing beforehand will always be less " Really? Have you heard of biocentrism? It's a theory proposed by Robert Lanza who just happens to be one of the most important scientists of today. He believes consciousness creates the universe. Mainstream science struggles with anything that is not falsifiable, but modern science relies on measurement tools that are in my opinion simply not upto the job when it comes to investigating consciousness and awareness. We just do not know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is a logical truth x However implausible, astounding , incomprehensible, amazing and statistically exponentially long odds that our universe occurred , shall we say naturally The statistical plausibility of a sentient creator existing beforehand will always be less Really? Have you heard of biocentrism? It's a theory proposed by Robert Lanza who just happens to be one of the most important scientists of today. He believes consciousness creates the universe. Mainstream science struggles with anything that is not falsifiable, but modern science relies on measurement tools that are in my opinion simply not upto the job when it comes to investigating consciousness and awareness. We just do not know. " My logic still applies xx It does not suggest your eminent scientists theory is not possible it illustrates the statistics behind its plausibility If everything we experience is no more than the manifest of another consciousness ie we are a computer program , the hardware to run said program and mimic what we perceive as reality must to a degree have come into being by at least as incredible or even less plausible than the scenario it manifests within its consciousness ! I'm not saying either concept is truth I'm saying a truth is statistically a creator or a computer consciousness are statistically less plausible Its statistically millions to one for the lottery , that does not mean I'm saying no one can win ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Too much blind faith......never heard of antibiotic resistance?. Yes, that's why we need new ones, I was saying if the placebo effect was any good why not just hand out smarties?.... ! That is the point hun - in some cases the placebos do work as well as the medication. And sometimes antibiotics don't work - never heard of mrsa? We are staring at the abyss on the subject of antibiotic resistance, science totally fucked up on that one..... But that has nothing to do with this debate, it's a straw dog." . Your missing my point all together!. Placebos only work with belief antibiotics work with or without it. Also you mislead a little with the sometimes wording, a truism would be antibiotics work placebos don't it's not absolute for sure but then like i said most people don't need absolutes just stuff that works | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". “. Quantum theory has seen to that. Yup, and in my opinion quantum theory is the beginning of a description of spiritual law. I watch with great interest!! ". How's that then, I've not read anything in quantum mechanics myself that prescribes spirituality? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Too much blind faith......never heard of antibiotic resistance?. Yes, that's why we need new ones, I was saying if the placebo effect was any good why not just hand out smarties?.... ! That is the point hun - in some cases the placebos do work as well as the medication. And sometimes antibiotics don't work - never heard of mrsa? We are staring at the abyss on the subject of antibiotic resistance, science totally fucked up on that one..... But that has nothing to do with this debate, it's a straw dog.. Your missing my point all together!. Placebos only work with belief antibiotics work with or without it. Also you mislead a little with the sometimes wording, a truism would be antibiotics work placebos don't it's not absolute for sure but then like i said most people don't need absolutes just stuff that works" But your statement is NOT true because placebos often do work and antibiotics often don't! In the field of human medicine you cannot divorce the bias of human consciousness... Ok you may say - lets do the study on animals?? Ah, but then we find the animal studies are different according to the belief of the people administering the medication!!! So what was that Quantum thought again - the act of observation actually alters the result of the experiment? As someone once said - if you are not shocked, you have not understood. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". “. Quantum theory has seen to that. Yup, and in my opinion quantum theory is the beginning of a description of spiritual law. I watch with great interest!! .
How's that then, I've not read anything in quantum mechanics myself that prescribes spirituality?"Patience, it's looking like it will come. The first time I heard about (one aspect of) Quantum theory I just said 'Well yeah, didn't they know that?' haha!! Those who understand spiritual law recognise the patterns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Spirituality and quantum physics.The old god of gaps approach. Let's find something we haven't understood fully and fit god into that lack of knowledge.Because god is always a better answer. Professor Brian Cox tore deepak Chopra to shreds over his belief that quantum mechanics explains Spirituality in some way.Funny read of you have time. " Looks like two schoolboys in a playground to me - I wouldn't be arguing about the detail of big bang theory myself, can't see anything about quantum mechanics and the spiritual - do you have a link?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
of the universe so, I don't think anybody can start with the clever clogsness.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Christian: 'God created the universe from nothing in 7 days' Theoretical physicist: 'What a load of nonsense, the universe was created in a fraction of a millisecond by exploding out of nothing' I am a scientific person, and not a creationist or religious. We only know the whereabouts of 5% of the universe so, I don't think anybody can start with the clever clogsness.
"Haha, well exactly. I don't know enough about the argument to comment on the positions - I've just read a condemnation of Cox's position, but I rather like this statement he made too: Q: What about breakthroughs like the discovery of gravitational waves that amounted to nothing? Was that just a fiasco or the way science works? A: The way science works. It was a legitimate measurement. It turned out they hadn’t taken everything into account. Some people take the view that these things shouldn’t be aired in public, but I think science is not about absolutes, science is about honesty. It’s about making measurements, doing the best you can and then usually showing that there is something not quite right about it. The idea that scientists are some kind of priests that have unique access to knowledge about nature is nonsense – in many ways I see it as the codified application of common sense. It’s like plumbing." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/07/12/deepak-chopra-vs-prof-brian-cox-fight/" Yeah, this is just the tip of the iceberg though - anyway, i have no idea what Chopra's theories are, but apparently he taunts various scientists, which in itself would lose my respect. Mind you, I don't think Cox behaved with much of the humility he describes either. Just read an article called 'Brian Cox and the Idolatry of Nerds' which criticises his position, and I'm not interested enough to delve further - as I say, two schoolboys it seems, and I follow Cox somewhere (I keep getting his tweets or facebook posts or something lol!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://youtu.be/4ojwZ9FffR8 Here's a YouTube vid of prof Brian Cox explaining misunderstandings Of quantum theory. " Nobody needs Youtube to misunderstand quantum theory. We can all do that perfectly well already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://youtu.be/4ojwZ9FffR8 Here's a YouTube vid of prof Brian Cox explaining misunderstandings Of quantum theory. " I don't think he really explains anything other than the fact that he gets annoyed when people appear to 'throw out the baby with the bathwater'. Without a full understanding of the claims the other guy has made I can't comment on either position - only the psychology I observe! Schoolboys! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientists often get annoyed as it's a lifetimes work built on the shoulders of great minds.Spirituality often looks for scientific theories that fit their world view.Or gaps in knowledge to shoe horn a creator in. Without doing any research or understanding the theory correctly..Cherry picking theories to promote a belief system.Confirmation bias anyone." In reality, who on earth analyses all the information available then comes up with a completely unbiased opinion on anything. Please be honest. Most people have opinions based on some limited knowledge and then tend to stick to it, unless there is very clear obvious evidence to the contrary. PS I am an engineer, agnostic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Scientists often get annoyed as it's a lifetimes work built on the shoulders of great minds.Spirituality often looks for scientific theories that fit their world view.Or gaps in knowledge to shoe horn a creator in. Without doing any research or understanding the theory correctly..Cherry picking theories to promote a belief system." Sure, but the converse is also true - I have seen so called scientists be appalling in their subjective selection of evidence to back up an erroneous position. Bias and bigotry in science appalls me as much as lack of logic and the spurious use of ambiguous language in spirituality. The two branches came from the same route - the search for truth. I embrace them both and take great delight in seeing where they converge, and I cannot understand anyone rational, logical and open-minded who would do otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Too much blind faith......never heard of antibiotic resistance?. Yes, that's why we need new ones, I was saying if the placebo effect was any good why not just hand out smarties?.... ! That is the point hun - in some cases the placebos do work as well as the medication. And sometimes antibiotics don't work - never heard of mrsa? We are staring at the abyss on the subject of antibiotic resistance, science totally fucked up on that one..... But that has nothing to do with this debate, it's a straw dog.. Your missing my point all together!. Placebos only work with belief antibiotics work with or without it. Also you mislead a little with the sometimes wording, a truism would be antibiotics work placebos don't it's not absolute for sure but then like i said most people don't need absolutes just stuff that works But your statement is NOT true because placebos often do work and antibiotics often don't! In the field of human medicine you cannot divorce the bias of human consciousness... Ok you may say - lets do the study on animals?? Ah, but then we find the animal studies are different according to the belief of the people administering the medication!!! So what was that Quantum thought again - the act of observation actually alters the result of the experiment? As someone once said - if you are not shocked, you have not understood. " . No you see I'm with you on that it's the detail in interested in, what's the percentage of people that antibiotics don't work for?. What's the percentage that placebos work for?. Was it one study that showed the animals had an effect from belief, was it several, have they confirmed that was the actual cause. I can give hundreds of bits of evidence that cast doubt on the holocaust but the overhaul evidence shows it to be true, what I'm thinking is your grabbing on to bits of evidence you wish to be true that cast doubt while ignoring the abundant evidence that shows the opposite. That's no really a problem to me or science, the best answer is usually the one that sees off all the others, again no absolutes but that's the best you can go off today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If religon is a search for truth.It's failed.It lost that purpose along the way.From the outset. I feel it was a method of control rather than a search for truth.So i can't use the word logic in the same sentence as bronze age belief systems." Well it doesn't suit you or me, but it helps lots of people in different ways. So in my opinion that's all fine. What benefit does it give talking down something that gives someone else comfort? MrB | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No you see I'm with you on that it's the detail in interested in, what's the percentage of people that antibiotics don't work for?. What's the percentage that placebos work for?. Was it one study that showed the animals had an effect from belief, was it several, have they confirmed that was the actual cause. I can give hundreds of bits of evidence that cast doubt on the holocaust but the overhaul evidence shows it to be true, what I'm thinking is your grabbing on to bits of evidence you wish to be true that cast doubt while ignoring the abundant evidence that shows the opposite. That's no really a problem to me or science, the best answer is usually the one that sees off all the others, again no absolutes but that's the best you can go off today" No, not at all, I know antibiotic resistance is a reality and one caused by excessive and inappropriate antibiotic use and I'm afraid you're going to have to do the research yourself if you're interested,. Funnily enough though I stumbled across an article on antibiotic resistance today trying to find some evidence on whether or not topical iodine was necrotizing in infectious wound management. I quote: "We know that antimicrobial resistance will follow antimicrobial use as sure as night follows day," said Dr. John A. Jernigan, deputy chief of prevention and response from the Center of Disease Control. "It's just a biological phenomenon." It turns out that the indiscriminate killing of harmless microbes damages the body in complex ways we are only beginning to understand. Powerful antibiotics introduced into the complex environment in our intestines cause mayhem, much like a series of bombs tossed into a market square. Antibiotic resistance is a widespread problem, and one that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls "one of the world's most pressing public health problems......" For example: "Sepsis is a common cause of death in the UK with over 44,000 deaths each year. More people die from sepsis than lung cancer (35,000) and bowel cancer (16,000) and many of these sepsis deaths are due to untreatable antibiotic resistant infections" The information is not hard to find if you are interested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If religon is a search for truth.It's failed.It lost that purpose along the way.From the outset. I feel it was a method of control rather than a search for truth.So i can't use the word logic in the same sentence as bronze age belief systems." I did not say religion I said spirituality - you might want to check the definitions before you argue the point, the value of religion is a whole other question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course religons and spiritual beliefs give comfort to billions.That's fine.I have no interest in changing someones beliefs .Just dont try and merge religon with science.They are incompatible. " I disagree, as do thousands of scientists who follow a religion or people who study both. SOME religious beliefs will conflict of course, same as some 'science' is bogus - but I know many people who see no conflict in mainstream faith and knowledge. How many years have you spent studying the religious beliefs you think are incompatible?? Maybe you just don't understand their position? I see no conflict between my understanding of the spiritual and medical science, and I have studied both in depth for many years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
